Quotes From Scientists on Evolution
Compiled by: Sean D. Pitman M.D.August 2001
“We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’” (K.Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich; Darwin’s Three Mistakes, Geology, vol. 14, 1986, p. 534)
Philosophy of Evolution:
“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school’.” Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist; British Museaum of Natural History, London, Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology) “ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR”Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer — Anthropology, Sydney University.Quadrant, October 1982, page 44.
“Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood… So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority—that’s why they’re so vicious towards critics.” Phillip Johnson, On the PBS documentary “In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy” [May 1995]
“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp … moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)
“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They’ve discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory.” (Luther D Sutherland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books,1988) pp.7-8)
“The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in ‘hard’ science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.” (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist) ‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate….It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect …higher intelligences…even to the limit of God…such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)
“Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology – professors and textbook writers included – have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it … College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud.” (George Kocan, Evolution isn’t Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 Monday April 21 1980)
“We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de ChardinRockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position. (Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer).
“Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish … It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction … In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process … After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then Lets cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back … Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.” (I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
“The theory of Evolution … will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” (Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher) “Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” (Dr T N Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist)
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Dr Louise Bounoure, Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg)
“Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. … The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.” Pierre-Paul Grasse; past-President, French Acadamie des Science, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 8
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. “A physicist looks at evolution” Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980
“I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”H. S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester, A paper published by The Institute of Physics, IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980
‘We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . .’ Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.
“Many well qualified scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of Wilberforce’s criticisms of Darwin . . . . today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots.” Professor Sir Edmund Leech, addressing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science.
The Geologic Column:
Complete Geologic Column Is Non-Existent, Except In Text Books
NOT REALLY ANYWHERE! VON ENGELN & CASTER, “If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles high. ….lt is, of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this great pile available at any one place. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado, for example, is only one mile deep.” GEOLOGY, p.417
BUILT BY CORRELATION, L. DON LEET (Harvard) & SHELDON JUDSON (Princeton), “Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for ‘together’ plus ‘relate'”. PHYSICAL GEOLOGY, P.181
“Use of the lead/uranium ratio, however, soon demonstrated its age to be more than two thousand million years,…. To some thoughtful stratigraphers this amazing discovery presented a dilemma, for if the known stratified rocks have been accumulating throughout this vast span of time the average rate of deposition must have been extremely slow, yet there is very good evidence that individual beds accumulated rapidly. Thus Schuchert ….found that if a geologic column were built up by superposing the thickest known part of each of the geologic systems in North America, from Cambrian to the present, the composite record would be about 259,000 feet thick. If we combine his results with the latest estimates of time based on radioactive minerals, we get the figures in Table 5, in which the last column indicates the estimated average rate of deposition. Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates. In the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. ln other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure.” PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY, p. 128.
Complete Column Is Pieced Together By Circular Logic
NONRADIOACTIVE CORRELATION, DEREK AGER (Past President, British Geol. Asso.), “….fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur …. I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”, New Scientist, Nov.10, p.425, 1982
BUILDING THE COLUMN, PUTMAN AND BASSETT, “A rock that had an early form of an organism was clearly older than rocks containing later forms. Furthermore, all rocks that had the early form, no matter how far apart those rocks were geographically, would have to be the same age. ….fossil successions made it possible to say that the Cambrian rocks are older than the Ordovician rocks. In this way our geologic time table came into being…Without the theory of evolution and the interdisciplinary science of paleontology, it could not exist.”, GEOLOGY p.544
- H. RASTAL, Cambridge University, “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle.The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain.” ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNIA, Vol.X, p.168
NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ. “And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” TIME FRAMES, 1985, p.52
TOM KEMP, Oxford, “A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67
- E. O’ROURKE, “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51
- B. KITTS, Univ. of Oklahoma, “But the danger of circularity is still present…. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation….for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.”,Evolution Vol. 28, p.466
DAVID M. RAUP, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., “The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity…Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.”, FMONH Bulletin, Vol. 54, Mar. 1983, p.21
Revolution To Catastrophism Among Contemporary Geologist
RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, “A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe… The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks….one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1
“THE RULE”, ROBERT H. DOTT, Presidential Address To Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists, “I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception. .we need to shed those lingering subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking.” Geotimes, Nov. 1982, p.16
CATACLYSMIC BURIAL, JOHN R. HORNER, “…there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs …there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. … That’s our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment.” DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131
EDWIN D. MCKEE, “The chief significance of ripple lamination in the geologic record is that it is an indicator of environments involving large and rapid sand accumulation… areas where addition of new sand normally is at a slow rate have little chance of developing into superimposed ripple lamination…In contrast, areas in which sand accumulates periodically but rapidly, as in river flood plains were sand laden waters of strong floods suddenly lose velocity are very favorable for building up ripple laminated deposits.” Primary Sedimentary Structures and Their Hydrodynamic Interpretation, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p.107.
ADOLF SClLACHER, Geoiogisches Inst., Univ. Frankfurt, “This proves instantaneous deposition of the individual beds, as postulated by the turbidity-current theory….the sandy layers of the Flysch did not accumulate gradually but were cast instantaneously by turbidity currents each bed in its entire thickness, in a matter of hours or less.” Journal of Geology, Vol. 70, p. 227.
Alan V. Jopling, Dept. of Geology, Harvard, “it is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours. …there is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes.” Some Deductions on the Temporal Significance of Laminae, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.880-887.
“Hanging from a ceiling beam in the 40yearold building’s basement are several rows of formations not usually seen so close to ground level. Stalactites. Yep, stalactites more than 100 of the squiggly, slippery rock formations that thousands of people pay to see in places named Carlsbad and Mammoth….They are natural cave ornaments, pure and simple….Deputy Chief Ray Hawkins has been parking in the basement of the building at Harwood and Main streets since the 1960s and can’t remember a time when the mineralsickles weren’t hanging around.” Dallas Morning News, 4/4/1994, p. 13A
TIME RELATIONS?, DUNBAR & ROGERS “….though facies and faunal relations are recorded in the rocks and fossils, and their determination can be reasonable exact and objective, time relations are not so recorded, and their determination remains an ideal, toward which we strive, but which we can only approximate…. It follows that correlation, being….essentially an interpretation, is the result of personal judgment, and that it can never be wholly objective,….”, PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY, p.272
SEGREGATED FOSSIL ASSEMBLAGES?, GILLULY, WALTERS, WOODFORD, “In correlating rock strata by comparison of fossils, it is important to keep in mind the limitations to the spread of organisms imposed by their natural habitats. Many different depositional environments exist…. Each environment has its characteristic group of animals and plants, that live contemporaneously…. For example, we do not expect to find the bones of antelopes in a coral reef, nor coral in a desert sand dune…we would not expect to find the same fossils entombed in all the varied deposits formed.”, PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, p. 101
FOSSIL PROGRESSION?, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981
Superior Explanatory Value Of Vapor Canopy.
Geologic Implication Of Greenhouse Effect:
World-Wide Tropical Climate. Larger Plants & Animals. Catastrophic Change at Poles
CLIMATE OF THE PAST, DOTT AND BATTEN, Evolution of the Earth, “Devonian land plants are similar the world over, suggesting that climate was rather uniform. Wide distribution of richly fossiliferous middle Paleozoic marine carbonate rocks, and especially the great latitudinal spread of fossil reefs, suggest subtropical conditions….lt. has long been felt that the average climate of the earth through time has been milder and more homogeneous than it is today. If so the present certainly is not a very good key to the past in terms of climate!” p.298
DIFFICULT FOR WHOM? VON ENGELN & CASTER, “The warm, equable climate, characteristic of the entire Cretaceous, prevailed also over most of the world throughout the Jurassic with, possibly, localized exceptions. This universal tropicallity is difficult to explain.” GEOLOGY, p.491
The Fossil Record:
STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, “…one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion…during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.”, Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990
PRESTON CLOUD & MARTIN F. GLAESSNER, “Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike….This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known.” SCIENCE, Aug.27, 1982
RICHARD MONASTERSKY, Earth Science Ed., Science News, “The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared….This moment, right at the start of the Earth’s Cambrian Period…marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures….’This is Genesis material,’ gushed one researcher….demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today…a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertebrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver.” Discover, p.40, 4/93
RICHARD DAWKINS, Cambridge, “And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists….the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation…”, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, 1986, p229-230
H.S. LADD, UCLA, “Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Precambrian record cannot properly he described as a link for it is in reality, about ninetenths of the chain of life: the first ninetenths.”, Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.ll, p.7
PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard, “It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoa’s, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.”, PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23
TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN
JOHN E. REPETSKI, U.S. Geological Survey, “The oldest land plants now known are from the Early Cambrian… Approximately 60 Cambrian sporegenera are now on record ….represent 6 different groups of vascular plants…”, Evolution, Vol. 13, June ’59, p.264-275
DANIEL I. AXELROD, UCLA, “This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years.” [WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] Science, Vol. 200, 5 May, 1978, p.529
“Evolutionary Trees” Contradicted By Fossils
SEPARATE LIVING KINDS, STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Harvard, “Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).”, Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990
SEPARATE FOSSIL KINDS, Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), “If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of the world’s higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.”, Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.
“TREES” NOT FROM FOSSILS, S. J. GOULD, Harvard, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.”, Nat. His., V.86, p.13
STORY TIME, COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, “You say I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” “It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. … But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. … I don’t think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual.” HARPER’S, Feb. 1984, p.56
ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H. DOTT, U. of Wis. & R.L. BATTEN, Columbia U., A.M.N.H., “We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the ‘simplest’ forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of ‘complexity’ you wish to choose. …things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor.” EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602
UNRELATED LOOKALIKES, J.Z. YOUNG, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, “….similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. …Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other.” LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779
INTERPRETATION OF SIMILARITY, T.H. MORGAN Prof. Zoology, Columbia, Univ., “If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.”, SCI. MO., l6;3;237, p.216
NONGENETIC SIMILARITY, SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BMNH, “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; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless.” Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM
EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION?, Ashley Montagu, “The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.”, Montagu-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/1980
Significant Change Is Not Observed
BOTHERSOM DISTRESS, STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. “Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. …They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”
DESIGNS, S.J. GOULD, Harvard, “We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence….I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record….we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.”, Natural His., 2/82, p.22
Required Transitional Forms Missing
DARWIN’S BIGGEST PROBLEM, “….innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ….why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory”. ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.
MORE EMBARRASSING, DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of N.H., “The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would…. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. …ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35
GOOD RECORD-BAD PREDICTION, NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46
Proposed Links “Debunked”
STORY TIME OVER, DEREK AGER, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student…have now been ‘debunked.’ Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage’s among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.”, PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132
“FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS”, Nature, Vol. 322, 1986 p.677, “Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found. …a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. …tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds.”
REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, “The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS Vol. 1, p.1.
ORDERS, CLASSES, & PHYLA, GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON, Harvard, “Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”, EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p. 149
GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… The ‘fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories’ is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.”, Evolution, Vol. 28, p. 467
NOT ONE ! D.S. WOODROFF, Univ. of CA, San Diego, “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716
EVIDENCE A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, PLANT LIFE THROUGH THE AGES, p.561, “The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.”
“WE KNEW BETTER”, NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, “And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: …. We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.”, TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144
Unobserved imagined scenario to explain m1ssing evidence, based on fossils not found, mechanisms not observed
“UNEMBARRASSED”, GOULD & ELDREDGE, “In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; ‘all these years of work and I haven t found any evolution’. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) “The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms.” (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) “During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. …The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established.” Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, S.M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U. “The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly…a punctuational model of evolution…operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them in small, localized, transitory populations. …The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found.”, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981 pp.77, 110
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., “Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn’t give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. …When you haven’t got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. “, Quoted in: DARWIN’S ENIGMA, p. 100
INAPPLICABLE TO “KINDS”, Valentine (Univ. of CA) & Erwin (MI St. Univ), “We conclude that…neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans.”, Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.
Implication Of The Fossils
PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, “The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories….the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.”, Evolution, Vol.28, p.466
DON’T USE THE FOSSILS, MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, “…a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. …In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831
FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. CORNOR, Cambridge “Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61
“In most people’s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It’s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation.” (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)
‘Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)
“The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools … Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is ‘no doubt’ how man originated: if only they had the evidence…” (William R Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150)
“We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists.” (Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose) “As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.” (Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, p.7)
“The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” (John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)
“…most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” (Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago)
“Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of ‘seeing’ Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them.” (David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)
“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” (George Simpson, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)
“Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama … as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers.”Feduccia, Alan (1985) “On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers” The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76
“As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record.” (Tom Kemp, Oxford University)
“The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.” (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.” (J.O’Rourke in the American Journal of Science)
“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain.” (R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)
” It is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.” (Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist)
“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them.” (David Kitts, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)
“… I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.” (Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p.97))
“There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.(The famous paleontologist Colin Patterson, a director of the Natural History Museum of England– Colin Patterson, Harper’s, February 1984, p.60) Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution, which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.[ Bethel, Tom, “The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin,” Harper Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60. Note that Dr Eldredge still believes in horse evolution, just not in the smooth sequence of horse evolution that is presented in the museum.]
“Modern apes … seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans … is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist) On December 9 archeologist and paleo-anthropologist Mary Leakey died at age 83. Although Leakey was convinced that man had evolved from ape-like ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never be able to prove a particular scenario of human evolution. Three months before her death, she said in an interview: “All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” Associated Press (AP) Dec. 10, 1996.
“Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order … it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.” (John Woodmorappe, geologist)
“Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete.”—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95. Dr. David Pilbeam an anthropologist at Harvard seems to have come to similar conclusions. In a 1978 review of Richard Leakey’s book ORIGINS, he said that it was, “a clear statement of our current consensus view of human evolution and remarkably up to date” but he concluded with the following sobering thoughts: “My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. But introductory books – or book reviews – are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.”– David Pilbeam, Review of Richard Leakey’s book ORIGINS, American Scientist, 66:379, May-June 1978.
More on “Early” Man:
APES UP FROM?, DONALD JOHANSON, “At any rate, modem gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday…., LUCY, p.363
RECONSTRUCTIONS? EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, “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. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. 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.”, UP FROM THE APE, p.332
RECONSTRUCTIONS? W. HOWELLS, Harvard, “A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists 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 Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.”, MANKIND SO FAR, p. l38
THEORY DOMINATED DATA, DAVID PILBEAM, YALE, “I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, “theory” – heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates “data”. ….Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.” Quoted in BONES OF CONTENTION p.127
PARANORMAL ANTHROPOLOGY, LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN, “We then move right of the register objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man’s fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible and where the ardent believer is sometimes able believe several contradictory things at the same time.” BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.19
“SIMILAR” NOT NECESSARILY “KIN” – RELATIONSHIPS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE
BASIS OF “FAMILY TREE”. ROGER LEWIN, Editor, Research News, Science, “The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance, at gross and detailed levels of anatomy. Sometimes this approach….can be deceptive, partly because similarity does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar…, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p. 123
PROVEN ANCESTRY? RICHARD C. LEWONTIN, Prof. of Zoology, Harvard, “Look, I’m a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982 that we don’t know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors we haven’t the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ….All you’ve got is Homo sapiens there, you’ve got that fossil there, you’ve got another fossil there…and it’s up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.”, Harpers, 2/84
RAMPITHECUS IS DISCARDED APE
“APE MAN” OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, “The dethroning of Ramapithecus from putative first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982 is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.86
“APES”, Robert B. Eckhardt, Penn. State Univ., “…there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils… (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They themselves nevertheless seem to have been apes morphologically, ecologically, and behaviorally.”, Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101
AUSTRALOPITHECUS IS AN APE
SECOND “APE MAN” OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo large brain, tool making and so on has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the apeman, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry.” BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18
LEAKEY DEFECTION, “Dr. Leakey bases his repudiation of Darwin on the results of his long search in East Africa for the remains of the original man. The generally accepted post Darwin view is that man developed from the baboon 3 to 5 million years ago. But Leakey has found no evidence of a spurt in development at that time.”, Chicago American, 1/25, 1967
DISMISSED APE, LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN, “His Lordship’s scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes’, he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.. Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level…,while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids….it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors.”, Roger Lewin, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.164, 165
DEFINITELY AN APE, LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN, “The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78
UNHUMAN, LIKE THE ORANGUTAN, CHARLES E. OXNARD, Dean of Graduate School, Prof. of Biology & Anatomy, USC, “….conventional wisdom is that the australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans….the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form: when they do have similarities with living species, they are as often as not reminiscent of the orangutan, …these results imply that the various australopithecines are really not all that much like humans. ….may well have been bipeds, …. but if so, it was not in the human manner. They may also have been quite capable climbers as much at home in the trees as on the ground..”, The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, May 1979, pp.273-4
LIKE PYGMY CHIMP, ADRIENNE L ZIHLMAN, U. C. Santa Cruz, “Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to “Lucy,” one of the oldest hominid fossils known and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature; and in brain size…. These commonalties, Zihlman argues indicate that pygmy chimps use their limbs in much the same way Lucy did….”, Science News, Vol.123, Feb.5. 1983, p.89
AUSTRALOPITHECINES, William Howells, Harvard, “…the pelvis was by no means modern, nor were the feet: the toes were more curved than ours; the heel bones lacked our stabilizing tubercles; and a couple of small ligaments that, in us, tighten the arch from underneath, were apparently not present. The finger bones were curved as they are in tree climbing apes.” GETTING HERE, 1993, p.79
SHRIVELED STATUS, MATT CARTMILL, Duke; DAVID PILBEAM Harvard; GLYNN ISAAC Harvard; “The australopithecines are rapidly shrinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes…”, American Scientist, (JulyAugust 1986) p.419
FAILED LINKS: PILTDOWN MAN, NEBRASKA MAN, JAVA MAN, PEKING MAN
BELIEVE IT, SEE IT, ROGER LEWIN, Editor of Research News, Science, “How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones the cranial fragments and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and see in an apes jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity. The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientist’s’ expectations and there effects on the interpretation of the data … It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we’ve seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions.”, BONES OF CONTENTION, pp.61, 68
FALSIFIED CASTS, ALES HRDLICKA, Smithsonian (Re: Java Man)None of the published illustrations or casts now in various institutions is accurate.” Science, Aug.17, 1923
EVIDENCE MISSING, WILLIAM HOWELLS, Harvard, “Java Man went into Dubois’ locker for a time. But Peking Man seems to have gone into Davy Jones’ locker, and for good. He disappeared, one of the first casualties of the war in the Pacific, half a million years after he had died the first time.” MANKIND IN THE MAKING, p.165
NEANDERTHAL: CROMAGNON ARE MEN
EVOLUTION OR VARIATION? “….a Neanderthaler is a model of evolutionary refinement. Put him in a Brooks Brothers suit and send him down to the supermarket for some groceries and he might pass completely unnoticed. He might run a little shorter than the clerk serving him but he would not necessarily be the shortest man in the place. He might be heavier-Featured, squattier and more muscular than most, but again he might be no more so than the porter handling the beer cases back in the stock room.” EVOLUTION, TimeLife Nature Library.
LARGER BRAIN, WILLIAM HOWELLS, Harvard, “The Neanderthal brain was most positively and definitely not smaller than our own; indeed, and this is a rather bitter pill, it appears to have been perhaps a little larger.”, MANKIND SO FAR, p.165
MODERN CAME FIRST, O. BARYOSEF, Peabody Museum, Harvard, B. VANDERMEERCH, Univ. Bordeaux, “Modern Homo sapiens preceded Neanderthals at Mt. Carmel. …modern looking H. sapiens had lived in one of the caves some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, much earlier than such people had been thought to exist anywhere. …The results have shaken the traditional evolutionary scenario, producing more questions than answers.” Scientific American, p.94, April 1993
MAN “OLDER” THAN PROPOSED ANCESTORS
RUINED FAMILY TREE, “Either we toss out this skull  or we toss out our theories of early man,” asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, witch he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. “It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings.” The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull’s surprisingly large braincase “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”, National Geographic, June 1973, p.819
HUMAN BRAIN, “Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case  as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo erectus.” Science News, 102 (4/3/72) p.324
HUMAN BRAIN, Dean Falk, St. U. of N.Y. at Albany, “…KNMER 1805 Homo habilis should not be attributed to Homo… the shape of the endocast from KNMER (basal view) is similar to that from an African pongid, where as the endocast of KNMER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human.” Science, 221, (9/9/83) p.1073
HUMAN BRAIN “The foremost American experts on human brain evolution Dean Falk of the State University of New York at Albany and Ralph Holloway of Columbia University usually disagree, but even they agree that Broca’s area is present in a skull from East Turkana known as 1470. Philip Tobias…renowned brain expert from South Africa concurs.” Anthro Quest: The Leakey’s Foundation News. No.43 (Spring 91) p.13
NOT ERECTUS, “According to paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York the African skulls…assigned to erectus often lack many of the specialized traits that were originally used to define that species in Asia, including the long low cranial structure thick skull bones, and robustly built faces. In his view, the African group deserves to be placed in a separate species…” Discover, 9/94, p.88
“OLD” MODERN MEN, Louis Leakey, ‘In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo kanamensis, and I said categorically this is not a nearman or ape, this is a true member of the genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was somewhere around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put on the shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a ‘suspense account.’ Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right.” Quoted in BONES OF CONTENTION, p.156
‘THE OLDEST MAN’, “[African Footprints] ….they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to manapes (like Australopithecus, who was once a thought to be the forerunner of man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end). ….they were 3.35 million to 3.75 million years old. ….they would, in Mary Leakeys words, be people ‘not unlike ourselves,’….” Time, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93
TOO HUMAN TOO OLD, Russel H. Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory University, “In sum, the 3.5millionyearold footprint trails at Laetoli sight G resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans…If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus…in any case we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind…” Natural History, 3/90, p.64.
MODERN & TALL, RICHARD LEAKEY, ….the boy from Turkana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. ….he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia.”, National Geographic, p.629, Nov., 1985
MAN EVEN “BEFORE” LUCY
CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC, “…earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi…existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines… almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years…” American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274.
HENRY M. MCHENRY, U. of C., Davis, “The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens…” Science Vol.190, p.~28.
WILLIAM HOWELLS, Harvard, “…with a date of about 4.4 million, [KP 271] could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.”, HOMO ERECTUS, 1981, p.79-80.
EVE KICKED OUT, STEPHEN J. GOULD, “…’mitochondral Eve’ hypothesis of modern human origins in Africa, suffered a blow in 1993, when the discovery of an important technical fallacy in the computer program used to generate and assess evolutionary trees debunked the supposed evidence for an African source…disproving the original claim.”, Natural History, 2/94, p.21
Randomness of Life and DNA:
“… Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court …” (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space)
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution … if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)
“The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first – the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? … there is virtually no chance that chemical ‘letters’ would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein ‘words.'” (George Howe, expert in biology sciences)
“…An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.” (Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley and Robert L Olsen: The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Reassessing Current Theories (New York Philosophical Library 1984) pp 211-212)
“Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life.” (David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville) “Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond … anything produced by the intelligence of man?” (Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)
“There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously — and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible.”Orgel, Leslie (1998) “The origin of life — a review of facts and speculations,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. (pp. 494-495)
“When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn’t been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.” (C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General)
Radioactive Clocks, Meteorites, Lava Flows, Oil Pressure, Carbon-14:
The quotes in this section are from: William D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, pp. 80-84. Stansfield is an evolutionist, but lists some of the common creationist arguments below… and then argues that these are invalid points in that they assume a “steady state” scenario for the history of our world. You be the judge to see if these are in fact invalid points to consider.
“The atmospheric content of helium-4 (the most abundant isotope of helium) has accumulated from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust and oceans, from nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays, and from the sun. If the present rate of accumulation has been constant throughout four billion years of the earth’s history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our present atmosphere as is presently there.”
“Uranium salts presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that 60,000,000,000 grams of uranium is added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1E+17 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years.
“One estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually. If this rate has been constant throughout five billion years of geologic history, one might expect over fifty feet of meteorite dust to have settled all over the surface of the earth. … The average meteorite contains about three hundred times more nickel than the average earth rock.”
“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.”
“It has been estimated that four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutin and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. The Colombian plateau of northwestern United States (covering 200,000 square miles) was produced by a gigantic lava flow several thousands of feet deep. The Canadian shield and other extensive lava flows indicate that volcanic activity has indeed followed an accelerated tempo in the past. The fact that only a small percentage of crustal rocks are recognizably lavas….”
“Some geologist find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years.”
“It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of Cl4 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present. This condition would lead to abnormally low C14/Cl2 ratios for the older fossils. Such a fossil would be interpreted as being much older than it really is. … Creationists argue that since Cl4 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old.”
“Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?” (S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))
“Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA … All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening … if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilized egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion.” (Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication… Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))
“An historic conference in Chicago challenges the Four- decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis, The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro – evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No….Francisco Ayala, ‘major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States’, said: ‘We would not have predicted stasis…but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.” Lewin, R. (1980) “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire” Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883
“It is good to keep in mind … that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.” (Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)
“The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency.” (Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History) Grasse in several different places in his book provides devastating evidence to show that “chance” cannot account for evolution. He correctly evaluates the attitude of Darwinists toward “chance” when he says: “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, N.Y. (Pierre-Paul Grasse is the past President of the French Academie des Sciences and editor of the 35 volume “Traite de Zoologie” published by Masson, Paris.)
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Pierre-Paul Grasse)
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.” (N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist) “As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a “preflagellum” (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of “simultaneous” development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?” Dr. Robert Macnab of Yale University (1978) “Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System” CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., pp. 291-341
“[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240. “The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.
“To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with ‘natural selection’ are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability.”Cohen, I.L. (1984) Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities , New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81
“In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge … or even a new enzyme.” (Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38) MICHEL DELSOL PROF. OF BIOLOGY, UNIV. OF LYONS, “If mutation were a variation of value to the species, then the evolution of drosophila should have proceeded with extreme rapidity. Yet the facts entirely contradict the validity of this theoretical deduction; for we have seen that the Drosophila type has been known since the beginning of the Tertiary period, that is for about fifty million years, and it has not been modified in any way during that time.” ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE LIFE SCIENCES Volume II, p. 34 . Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History,
“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.”, CLADISTICS, BBC, March 4 1982.
“It may be time to rethink Our thoughts about the mechanisms for antibiotic – resistance patterns…The anaerobic bacteria, from the bowels of three members of an lt’,45 Arctic expedition have survive 140 yrs and are showing resistance patterns to modern antibiotics. Current theories suggest that antibiotic resistance is linked to long-term exposure to antibiotics. Needless to say, antibiotics were not developed until long after these 19th century bacteria and their hosts have been buried in arctic permafrost.” Medical Tribune, 12/29/88, p.23 S.M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U. “…natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution.” Pro. N. A. S., v 72, p.648 S. M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins Univ.
“Once established, an average species of animal or plant will not change enough to be regarded as a new species, even after surviving for something like a hundred thousand or a million, or even ten million generations… Something tends to prevent the wholesale restructuring of a species, once it has become well established on earth.” Johns Hopkins Magazine, p.6, June, 1982.
STEPHEN T. GOULD, Harvard
“A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species. …That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change.” Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 14/2/1980
STEPHEN T. GOULD, HARVARD
“We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. NATURAL HISTORY, 2/82, P. 22,23
STEPHEN T. GOULD Harvard
“I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid -1960’s. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution…I have been reluctant to admit it – since beguiling is often forever – but if Mayr’s characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.” Paleobiology Vol. 6 1980 p. 120.
“….one can say that mutations are owing to incorrect copying, to occasional mistakes in the generally so remarkably accurate process of replication…. You may, if you wish, compare mutations to accidental misspellings or misprints which even the most experienced copyist may from time to time….harmfulness of most mutants is just what could be reasonably expected. ….an accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or into one’s radio set can hardly be expected to make it work better.”, HEREDITY AND THE NATURE OF MAN, p.126
“No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations,…I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way; ” The Orion Book of Evolution, p. 17
No Such Thing as a “Simple” Life Form:
“….we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell….in….its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing ‘primitive’ about them….no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible.”
CHANCE AND NECESSITY, p. 134.
College text used by students just a generation ago is under serious attack. New insights into planetary formation have made it increasingly doubtful that clouds of methane and ammonia ever dominated the atmosphere of the primitive earth….If scientists have, by and large, tossed out the old ideas, they have not yet reached a consensus on the new. Time, 10/11/1993 CARL SAGAN Cornell, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10 to the 12th power bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannicas.”, Life, Vol.10 p.894.
RICIHARD DAWKINS, Oxford,
“Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopedia Britannicas.”, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.116.
MICHAEL DENTON Molecular Biologist (Agnostic),
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity…. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”, EVOLUTION, A THEORY IN CRISIS, 1985, pp. 327-8, 342.
Creatures Bigger and Better in the Past:
VON ENGELN & CASTER,
“Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in Pliocene than in later times.”,
“Leakey…had been scouring the globe since 1931. Over the years he has unearthed the bones of an ancient pig as big as a rhino, a six foot tall sheep a twelve foot tall bird and the flat – topped skull of the erect ‘Nutcracker man’.”;
TIME MAGAZINE, March 10, 1961 CLIFFORD SIMAK, TRILOBITE, DINOSAUR AND MAN, p.158 .
“In general all the Pennsylvanian insects were larger than the ones we know today.”
RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS, SIR JULIAN HUXLEY,
“In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.”, EVOLUTION AFTER DARWIN, Vol. 3, p.253
EVOLUTION – GIVEN MORALITY, ERNST MAYR,
“The publication in 1859 of the Origin of Species signified the end of an automatic acceptance of the God-given nature of human morality…Evolution does not give us a complete set of ethical norms such as the Ten Commandments, yet an understanding of evolution gives us a world view that can serve as a sound basis for the development of an ethical system….” TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, Harvard Univ. Press, 1988, pp. 75, 89.
Archaeology: ‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004).
“The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge.” (Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University) “The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.” (Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).
“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” (Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought) “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” (Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press, p. 185)
Recently two prominent British scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator. “It is quite a shock,” said Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect ‘deliberate,’ ” or created. Professor Wickramasinghe also said: “I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.”(– Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, As quoted in “There Must Be A God,” Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981 and “Hoyle On Evolution,” Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, 105.)
CARL SAGAN, Cornell,
“Unacceptable high mutation rates will, of course, occur at much lower u.v. doses, and even if we imagine primitive organisms having much less stringent requirements on the fidelity of replication than do contemporary organisms, we must require very substantial u.v. attenuation for the early evolution of life to have occurred..”, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.39, p.197 FRANCIS CRICK, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
LIFE IT SELF, 1981, p. 88. ILYA PRIGOGIN (Nobel Laureate)
“Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.” Physics Today, Vol.25 p.28.
“As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down. Yet the universe was once in a position from which it could run down for trillions of years. How did it get into that position?” Science Digest, May 1973, pp.76-77
H.J. LIPSON, Physics, U. of Manchester,
“I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”, Physics Bulletin,Vol.31, 1980, p.138
G.J. VAN WYLEN, RICHARD SONNTAG,
“…we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe.” FUNDAMENTALS OF CLASSICAL, THERMODYNAMICS, 1985, p.232.
Biologists aren’t entirely satisfied with the intrinsic subjectivity of classification, and have hoped that molecular biology would yield a more quantitative approach. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA sequences would yield quantitative numbers that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree of accuracy. According to an article in the January 1998 issue of Science,
Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought. (Maley & Marshall, “The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics,” Science, 23 January 1998, page 505)
The article then discusses a figure that shows that mollusks are more closely related to deuterostomes than arthropods when the creatures being compared are a scallop (a mollosk), a sea urchin (a deuterostome), and a brine shrimp (an arthropod). That isn’t too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp, and the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin shown on their diagram isn’t surprising.
But when a tarantula is used as the representative of the arthropod, there is a 92% correlation between the scallop and the tarantula. It doesn’t seem reasonable that a scallop should be more closely related to a harry, land-dwelling spider than to a sea urchin. This is troubling to the authors of the Science article, which leads them to remark:
The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate … current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly. (Ibid)