knowtruth logo
This article is located at

>> origins >> mankind

A Quick Answer to Evolution

The Fossil Record

The debate between evolution and creation is of paramount importance. It is perhaps the most significant apologetic issue of our time. In reality we are asking, "Is there a God?" There are so-called theistic evolutionists - those who believe that God caused evolution and therefore God and Darwinism can peacefully coexist - but ultimately Darwinism does away with the need for God.

Refuting the theory (yes, it's just a theory) of evolution is fairly simple. There are volumes written on the topic, but you just need to remember a few basic things.

The Fossil Record Does Not Support It

One of the most painful realities Darwinists face today is the fossil record. Once expected to provide the evidence to support Darwin's theories, paleontology has now shot it full of holes. The humor of G.K Chesterson says much about this development,

"Folks seem to know everything about the missing link, except that it IS MISSING."

In a following page we will see several quotations from evolutionists and agnostic paleontologists. These are not believers, and yet they challenge the validity of Darwinism in their own words. You will see by these quotations that the big problem with the fossil record is the lack of evidence of transitional forms.

What are transitional forms? They are the in-between stages that every evolutionary being would go through in order to evolve to a higher form. Several months ago I was riding on an airplane seated next to a scientist in the field of optical technology. He explained to me that he was working on electronic methods of recreating the capabilities of the human eye. At one point he peaked my interest when he noted that it was challenging, "... because the human eye has had billions of years to evolve."

The problem with this premise is this: If the eye has evolved from nothing into a functional eye over the last billion years, why is there absolutely no evidence of partially evolved eyes? If legs evolved into wings, where are the partially developed wings or extremities that are half-wing and half-leg? Where are the fossils of forms between ape and man? I'm not asking for the one or two that are questionable (Nebraska Man, Lucy), but where are the millions that we should be tripping over? Missing.

As I am writing this, Time Magazine has just published an article (August 23,1999 issue) about the evolution of mankind. The cover has a picture of a human skull formed out of clay with a few recently discovered bone fragments pressed into place. The cover reads How Man Evolved and the title of the article is Up From The Apes. The article and many like it concern me because they place a great deal of speculation squarely in the realm of fact.

The article is full of information about researchers and paleontologists that have discovered a few bone fragments and developed complete skeletons from them, primarily through speculation. Of most interest, however, is the overriding theme of the article. The writers conclude that man has not evolved in a linear fashion from ape to human, but rather in a series of parallel efforts. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that each time scientists discover a supposed ancient ancestor, a new discovery is made alongside indicating that modern humans (Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapien) also existed at that time.

Could it be that the Bible is right? Could it be that mankind has existed from the beginning and animals such as chimps and apes lived alongside man rather than before him? Thankfully, many are not deceived by the continual conjecture. The same issue of Time Magazine also reported that the Kansas State school board recently voted to eliminate the teaching of evolutionary theory from the state's curriculum. It is not surprising that Time published the article at a time when the creation/evolution debate is peaking in a backlash against such a remarkable decision.

Setting It Straight

Within days of this article appearing at the newsstand a superb response was published at the web site Answers In Genesis Online. I have reproduced an excerpt below in order to show that much of what is made public has been tainted by bias towards evolutionary theory.

"The article claims that 'amazing new discoveries reveal the secrets of our past' and 'remarkable new evidence is filling in the story of how we became human'. In reality, there is actually little new in this article. What is new is trivial, and does not establish human evolution, any more than similar claims (now mostly discredited) did so in the past.

The article papers over the profound disagreements amongst evolutionists themselves about the significance of the various claims. For example,
Ardipithecus ramidus is proudly portrayed as our ancestor closest to the apes. When the evidence is examined, it is found most wanting, especially when it is remembered that it was claimed as THE missing link at the time it was announced to the eager media. The bits and pieces were found scattered over about a mile and put together to get 'the missing link'.

Homo habilis is now widely recognized as a mixture of different types, technically called an 'invalid taxon'. Skulls 9,11,12,13,14 and 15 are all just variations of the true human kind. Various respected evolutionists have provided evidence that
Australopithecus spp. (pictures 2-8) did not walk upright, certainly not in anything like the human manner (e.g. Oxnard on anatomy, Spoor on inner ear balance organ structure), and are not transitional between apes and people. This is totally left aside by the article. There is no reason to connect the australopithecines to humans, except in the belief system of evolutionists.

When complete fossils are found, they are easy to assign clearly as either 'ape' or human, there are only 'ape-men' where imagination colored by belief in evolution is applied to fragmented bits and pieces."

Besides the lack of transitional forms, the fossil record has another major problem. This problem occurs as paleontologists and archaeologists observe the oldest strata of the earth's crust - the Cambrian layer. If organic evolution were true the oldest layers of strata would contain more simplistic life forms, followed by more complex life forms in more recent strata. Quite the contrary is true. The Cambrian layer contains thousands of complex life forms - sometimes referred to as the Cambrian Explosion - without any sign of prior, more simple creatures. This clearly indicates the sudden explosion of life on earth without an evolutionary path.

There is much more to read on this subject, but hopefully you can get the idea that a healthy dose of skepticism is in order prior to accepting everything in print as truth.

What Do the Experts Say?

Below are several quotations from well-known evolutionists. I stress to you again that these are not believers. This information is also summarized in handout form here(LINK).

Life Is Too Complex

Life is far too complex to be explained as an accident. In a presentation debating Creationism vs. Evolution, Jason D. Browning proposed the following challenge. Design a robot that:

Unquestionably, if you could do this, your skill would be truly amazing. People would marvel. Where did you get the technology? How did you develop such an advanced design? The interesting thing is that this has already been done. We call it an ant. What's more amazing is that we step on them and spray them with poison because they are a trivial nuisance. Compared to man they are simple and insignificant. Man is complex beyond our imagination. How could we ever believe that such fabulous design is not the work of an intelligent and powerful designer? Life is too complex to be an accident. See the Argument by Design for more information.

It Violates the Laws of Physics

As noted in the Argument By Creation, Darwinism contradicts several observed laws of science. Among them are the law of biogenesis, the principles of entropy, and the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Unless one can propose evidence worthy of ignoring such universal axioms, there is every reason to categorically dismiss the claims of evolution.


Copyright © 2000-2002,