Evolution Cruncher Chapter 17
best examples of evolution have proven worthless
This chapter is based on
pp. 775-793 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume
Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are
at least 25 statements by scientists in the chapter appendix of the set.
You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.
Throughout this set of
books we have been surprised at the paucity of evidence that
evolutionary theory has to offer. We begin to wonder just how
evolutionists are able to maintain such a lock grip on the modern
In a later chapter (Evolution
and Education, on our website, but not in this paperback) we will
learn that their secret of success is actually their control of hiring
and firing in the scientific world, the colleges and universities,
research centers, and scientific organizations. Also they have close
connections with the media and the major book publishing houses. No
large book company would dare print the book you are now reading under
its own name. It is the fear of reprisal that keeps evolutionary theory
at the top.
EOHIPPUS AND THE HORSE SERIES—Here is
"Eohippus," the "first horse" (actually a rodent),
and the horse series which is exhibited.
Eohippus and the Horse
But, to the general public,
evolution presents its showcase,
assured that they will be ignorant enough of natural history and
scientific discoveries to gullibly absorb enough of it to keep them
puzzled and tractable.
Let us begin by
considering two of the best evolutionary pieces in this showcase.
These are "proofs" of evolution that we have not discussed in
detail elsewhere in this paperback. (All the other "best
evidences" will also be mentioned in this chapter. The peppered
moth has been discussed in detail in the chapter on Natural Selection.)
In all the other
"evidences of evolution" which we have examined in this book,
we have not found one indication of any transition across species.
the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record, there are TWO
times when one species evolved into another.
These are considered very important, and
have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now in some
1 - THE HORSE SERIES
the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds
of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged
these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display
at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to
be found in many museums in the United States and overseas.
Visually, it looks convincing.
"Horses are among
the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—*World
Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.
"The development of
the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution.
The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc.,
are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable
evidence of the evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin,
Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.
IN THE SERIES—When we
investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come
upon 14 distinct
problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine
series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have
merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from
small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."
1 - Different animals
in each series. In the
horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger
and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from
museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures
have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are
over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no
two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals
and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto!
another horse series!
2 - Imaginary, not
real. The sequence from
small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in
the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes;
some larger ones have two or three.
3 - Number of rib
number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four
toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19;
there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the
4 - No transitional
teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either
grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of
teeth between these two basic types. of
teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order
"horse" creatures do not come from the "proper"
lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest
"horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger
a horse. The first of
the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse),
but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is
like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums
exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the
rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who
cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed
trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a
horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so
the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have
suction cups on their feet!)
"The first animal
in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the
modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there
is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It
has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of
canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and
back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin,
Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.
7 - Horse series
exists only in museums. A
complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary
order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone
horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about
this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When
they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in
Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological
horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it
required millions of years for one species to make the change to
8 - Each one distinct
from others. There are
no transitional forms between each of these "horses."
As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.
9 - Bottom found at
the top. Fossils of
Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of
two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus
10 - Gaps below as
well as above. Eohippus,
the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by
any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
11 - Recent ones
below earlier ones. In South
America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found
below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.
12 - Never found in
consecutive strata. Nowhere
in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive
13 - Heavily keyed to
size. The series shown in
museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the
range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature
ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in
the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly
14 - Bones an
inadequate basis. In
reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses
and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their
bones would place them all together.
IN CONFUSION—In view
of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of
upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental, and strata
locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:
"The evolution of
the horse was never in a straight line."— *Encyclopaedia
Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.
Scientists protest such
ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought
it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the
British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the
early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small
dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was
all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.
a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a
straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to
horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with
complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered,
the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all
too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all.
Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of
horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of
Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in
elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s
Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those
TO SPEAK—Even though
scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for
it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on
their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly,
hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example
of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best
available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best
available example is a carefully fabricated fake.
[curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of
Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization
of the horse series ‘lamentable.’
speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make
candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for
public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge
made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best
example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it
were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.
". . [On February
14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host
asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no
examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr.
Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and
stated that it was the best available example of a transitional
sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.
A "LIVING FOSSIL"—*Hitching
has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary
"Once portrayed as
simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version
rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus,
supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long
extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and
well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman
that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The
Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.
A HORSE AT ALL—(*#2/11
The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus
has nothing to do with horses.
"In the first
place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral
horse."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p.
pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way
enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."—*Charles
Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French
DISCARD IT—*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History
in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago,
is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:
"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. The record of evolution is
still surprisingly jerky and, 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 a result of more detailed information. What
appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were
available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.
So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been
alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural
History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.
"It was widely
assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more
fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show
little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record]
fails to document the full history of the horse family."—*The
New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.
IN NATURE—A leading
20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this
epitaph to the burial of the horse series:
continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the
hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in
nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Earlier, *Simpson said
"Horse phylogeny is
thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic,
sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—*George
G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification
of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—The
same gap problem would apply to all the other species.
stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that
would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus)
and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then
gives the startling admission:
"This is true of
all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive
known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters,
and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to
another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large
that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G.
Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.
Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there
are five other primary series which have been worked out by
dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or
These are the Elephant
(Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series,
the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera Series,
and the Bivalve Series.
When one views the
charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted:
Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature
is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than
average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head.
Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics
together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each-gives the
impression that they are all "horse-like." All but one is
available for examination only in fossil form.
Then we turn to the Elephant
Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with
corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose,
and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in
fossil imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated
evolutionist on the non-existent "Elephant Series."
"In some ways it
looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as
that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the
elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered
to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping
is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any
known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the
early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "—*G.A. Kirkut,
Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.
Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of
the head while two of them have horns in different locations.
The last two, the Foraminifera
Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply
variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general
On one hand, it appears
that some of these series are simply different animals with
similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the
possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a
number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs.
There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than
among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply
dogs. Scientists recognize them as belonging to a single species.
2 - ARCHAEOPTERYX
Archaeopteryx*) This is a big name for a little bird,
and is pronounced "Archee-opter-iks." It means
"early wing." If you have a hard time with it, just call the
little fellow "Archee." He won’t mind.
There are high-quality
limestone deposits in Solnhofen, Germany (near Eichstatt), which have
been mined for over a century. From time to time, fossils have been
found in them, and the sale of these has provided extra income for the
owners of the Dorr quarry.
In 1861, a feather was
found and it sold for a surprisingly good price. This was due to the
fact that it had purportedly come from late Jurassic strata. Soon
after, in the same quarry, a fossil bird was found with the head and
neck missing. The name Archaeopteryx had been given to the
feather and so the same name was given to the bird. The Jurassic
specimen was sold for a high price to the British Museum. Finding
unusual specimens was becoming an excellent way to bring in good profit.
In 1877, a second specimen was said to have been discovered close to the
first,—but this one had a neck and head. In that head were 13 teeth in
each jaw; the head itself had the elongated rounded shape of a lizard
head. This latest find made an absolute sensation, and was sure to
sell for a great amount of money. And it surely did—going this
time to the Humboldt Museum, in Berlin, as the highest bidder.
Including that feather,
there are six specimens of Archaeopteryx in the world. All six came from
that same German limestone area.
In addition to the feather and the first
two, three others are quite faint and difficult to use. It is almost
impossible to tell what they are. Aside from the feather, the others are
located at London, Berlin, Maxburg, Teyler, and Eichstatt—all in
Germany. They all came from the same general area.
the first fossilized skeleton (the "London specimen")
and the second one (the "Berlin specimen") are
well-enough defined to be usable. Evolutionists declare them to be
prime examples of a transitional species. If so, we would have here the ONLY
definite cross-species transitions ever found anywhere in the world
produce only a single creature—one single fossil creature—or which
it is possible to produce even a semblance of an argument. That creature
is, of course, Archaeopteryx, of which about five fossil specimens have
been found in Upper Jurassic rocks (assumed by evolutionary geologists
to be about 150 million years in age). All have been found in the
Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany)."—Duane Gish,
Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 110.
consider Archaeopteryx to be a transition between reptile and bird. But
there are two other possibilities.
The experts say that, if
(if) it is genuine, it is a bird, not a transitional half-reptile,
half-bird creature. But there is strong evidence that Archaeopteryx is a
hoax—and not genuine. Some
favor the first, others (including the present writer) believe the
evidence favors the second. Here are both; take your pick.
 - ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A
If the Archaeopteryx
specimens really are genuine, there are several reasons why
Archaeopteryx can be considered to be a bird and not a reptile:
1 - Scientists say
it is only a bird and not a transitional species.
is significant that a special scientific meeting was held in 1982, a
year before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that
Archaeopteryx was a hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International
Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far
from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally
found. At this meeting, it was decided by the evolutionists that
Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not a reptile, or
half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not
necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.
scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a
transitional species, but only a bird!
2 - How could
scales turn into feathers? Although
zealous evolutionists have always claimed that this creature is a
descendant of the reptiles and the ancestor of the birds, yet they do
not explain how the scales on a reptile can change into feathers.
3 - Bones like
a bird. Archaeopteryx
is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a bird has.
4 - Not earlier than
does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been
found in rocks of the same period (the Jurassic) in which Archaeopteryx
5 - It has modern
bird feathers. The
feathers on Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers.
Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the
most perfectly developed feathers known to us."—*A. Feduccia
and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.
6 - No intermediate
feathers ever found. Transition
from scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none
have ever been found.
7 - Well-developed
wings. The wings of
Archaeopteryx were well-developed, and the bird probably could
8 - Wings designed
for flight. The
feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the shaft
does not have the same amount of feathers on both sides. This is the way
feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on
ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as
chickens) have fairly symmetrical feathers.
of asymmetrical feathers is that they indicate the capability of flying;
non-flying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical
[feathered] wings."—*E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight
Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature
(1979), p. 248.
9 - No prior
transitions. There ought to
be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this is not
the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and bird,
for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it
to the reptile. It has fully developed bird wing-bones and flight
10 - Bird-like in
most respects. Archaeopteryx
gives evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it
differs in certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits
on its wings, and (3) a reptile-like head, but there are explanations
for all three points. Here they are:
[a] - Lack of a
sternum. Archaeopteryx had
no sternum, but although the wings of some birds today attach to the
sternum, others attach to the furcula (wishbone). Archaeopteryx had a
large furcula, so this would be no problem.
"It is obvious that
Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull,
perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other
animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."—Duane
Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.
[b] - Digits on its
wings. Archaeopteryx had
three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also,
but so do a few modern birds. Modern birds with wing claws include
the hoatzin (Oplsthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which
has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor
flyer, with an amazingly small sternum—such as Archaeopteryx had. The
touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the
adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing.
Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.
[c] - The shape of
its skull. It has been said
that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird,
but investigation by Benton says the head is shaped more like a bird.
"It has been
claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than
bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen
has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have
shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously
thought. This has led Benton to state that ‘Details of the braincase
and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that
Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird."—*Duane Gish,
Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-113.
have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint
of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird
is: ‘A vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson,
paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western
Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as
Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the
death knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a
transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine
Debate," in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.
11 - Ornithologist
agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in
his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx
was a bird; and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other
birds: How could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big
gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.
were all these creature birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely
hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."—*F.E.
Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p. 160.
12 - Other birds had
teeth. It may seem unusual
for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other
extinct birds that also had teeth.
extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates
contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians,
reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."—*P. Moody,
Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197.
13 - Could be a
unique bird. Archaeopteryx
could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is
unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head
similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique
plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally
unlike anything else.
The platypus is an
animal with a bill like a duck and has fur, but lays eggs; in spite of
its egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk and chews
its food with plates instead of with teeth. The male has a hollow claw
on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has
claws like a mole; but, like a duck, it has webs between its toes. It
uses sonar underwater.
The platypus is
definitely far stranger than the Archaeopteryx,
and there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any
14 - Totally unique. Regarding
the Archaeopteryx, *Romer, the well-known paleontologist, said this::
"This Jurassic bird
[Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its
presume thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later
‘proper’ birds than before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and
Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.
From his own study, *Swinton,
an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:
"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."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology
of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.
Other scientists agree.
Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:
"It is obvious that
we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time
much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom,
Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.
greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are
disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In
spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of
reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of
actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to
consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By
link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as
reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying
characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true
link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long
as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy,
Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.
ARCHAEOPTERYX—That name surely sounds
scientific. But it covers, what many scientists consider to be, yet
another contrived hoax. Notice how carefully each "feather" is
separated from the one next to it. None overlay others, as would occur
if the bird was pressed flat by natural conditions. Instead, the artist
carefully scratched out separated "feathers."
15 - Modern birds in same strata.
Bones of modern birds have been found
in Colorado in the same geologic rock strata—the Jurassic—in
which archaeopteryx was found (Science
199, January 20, 1978). According to evolutionary theory, this
cannot be; for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx
to change into a regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as
modern birds, how can it be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also
been found in the Jurassic limestone beds of by researchers in Utah.
16 - Modern birds
below it! Not only do we
find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we
also find birds below it!
"Perhaps the final
argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a
rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found
bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than
Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or
Evolution? (1988), p. 46 [also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science
253, July 5, 1991].
No bird bones of any
type have been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the
Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now
below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic
Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in,
those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years
older than Archaeopteryx. More information on this Texas discovery can
be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.
 - ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A
Now we come to a totally
opposite position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a
planned hoax—and there is clear evidence to prove it!
At the same time that
mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully
contrived fake, confirmed evolutionists had been moving toward the
position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird, and not a
half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a "bird," they avoided
the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major
museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.
considering the *Hoyle/*Watkins exposé, let us first look at some other
facets of this overall problem.
You will observe, in the
following discussion, that there are some observational differences
between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while
some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird,
those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a
reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil and carefully added wings to it!
Here is an important
analysis. You will want to read it carefully:
"Like the later
Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There
are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and
Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are
hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to
link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed
form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations,
Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a
dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens
skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in
no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon .
. The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight
muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could
even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis,
Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.
1 - A profitable
business. There are those
who believe that Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would
have been relatively easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone
would make it easy to carefully engrave something on it. Since
the first Archaeopteryx sold for such an exorbitant price to the highest
bidder (the British Museum), the second, produced 16 years later, had a
reptile-like head—and sold for a tremendous amount to the museum in
Berlin. The owner of that quarry made a small fortune on the sale
of each of those two specimens.
2 - Feathers added to
a fossil? In these specimens
we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks
radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head
and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian
dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like
those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would
appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a
photograph of the "London specimen," you will note that the
flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines—nothing else!
It would be relatively
easy for someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and
carefully scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable
limestone. All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a
bird as a pattern to copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its
wing pattern onto the reptile specimen. That is all that would
be required, and the result would be a fabulous amount of profit. And
both specimens did produce just that!
3 - All specimens
came from the same place. Keep
in mind that all six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen
Plattenkalk of Franconia, Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere
else—anywhere in the world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever
Living in Germany, at
the same time that these six specimens were found, was *Ernst Haeckel
(1834-1919). He would have been in the
prime of life at the time both specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was
the most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent; and it is well-known
that he was very active at the time the finds were made. He was
continually seeking for new "proofs" of evolution, so he could
use them in his lecture circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual
illustrations; and it is now known that he spent time, on the side,
enthusiastically inventing them!
It is also known that Haeckel
had unusual artistic ability that he put to work, producing
pro-evolution frauds. He was fraudulently touching up and
redrawing charts of ape skeletons and embryos so that they would appear
to prove evolutionary theory. He had both the ability and the mind
set for the task. He could also use the money he would make.
You will find more information on his fraudulent artistry in chapter 16,
Vestiges and Recapitulation. There is no doubt that Haeckel had
the daring, the skill, the time, and the energy to forge those
Archaeopteryx specimens. In those years, he always seemed to have the
money to set aside time for anything he wanted to do in the way of
lecturing or drawing charts. He even supported a mistress for a number
of years. Perhaps some of that money came from engraving bird feathers
onto reptile fossils and, then, splitting the profits of Archaeopteryx
sales with the quarry owners.
The most delicate
tracery can easily be etched onto limestone blocks.
About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for
several weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper
engraving and stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in
printing and able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is
because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a
close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone
quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos"
and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our
present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a
descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a
flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the
water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary
method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio method of
fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but that
any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward
radiating flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil. The
delicate tracery which could be drawn onto limestone blocks, made it
possible to print banknotes and bond certificates with them.
"The feathers of
Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider,
at the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is
a mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to
base evolutionary theories on!"—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case
for Creation (1983), p. 81.
was not until the 1980s that the most formidable opposition to these
Solnhofen limestone specimens developed, Here is the story of what
1 - Background of
the investigations. In
1983, M. Trop wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the
specimen ("Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?" in Creation Research
Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 121-122). Two years later, a
series of four articles appeared in the British Journal of
Photography (March-June 1985 issues), declaring Archaeopteryx to be
a carefully contrived hoax.
Those articles were
authored by some of the leading scientists in England:
Hoyle, *R.S. Watkins, * N.C. Wickramasinghe, *J. Watkins, * R.
Rabilizirov, and *L.M. Spetner. This brought the controversy to the
attention of the scientific world. They declared in print that
Archaeopteryx was a definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been
Keep in mind as we
discuss these specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin
specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So
all the evidence, pro and con, must come from one or the other of those
1983, these six leading British scientists went to the London Museum and
carefully studied and photographed the specimen. The specimen is
contained in a slab and a counterslab—thus
giving a front and back view of it. Here
is what these well-known scientists discovered:
2 - Slab mismatch. The
two slabs do not appear to match. If the specimen was genuine, the
front and back slabs should be mirror images of one another, but they
are not. This one fact, alone, is not to prove the specimen a
A comparison of the
present specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration had
been later made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left
wing was totally mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration
brought the match closer together.
3 - Artificial
feathers. *Hoyle, *Watkins,
and the others decided that the body skeleton and arms were
genuine, but the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating
outward from the forelimbs) had been carefully imprinted on the
fossil by an unknown hand.
4 - Cement blobs. They
also found additional evidence of the forgery: Cement blobs had
been used during the etching process.
"They suggested the
following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers
removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2)
they then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone
of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed
feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material
(referred to as ‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs
from the rock were obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and
chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one
‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of others were left
behind."—*Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over
5 - Museum withdraws
specimen. After their
initial examination of the London specimen, they requested permission
for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob areas,
utilizing electron microscope, carbon 14 dating, and spectrophotometry.
Three months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen
was being withdrawn from further examination.
6 - History of
forgeries. *Hoyle, *Watkins,
and the others then checked into historical sources, and declared that
they had discovered that, dating back to the early 18th century, the
Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil forgeries.
Genuine fossils, taken from the limestone quarries, had been altered and
then sold to museums. These non-Archaeopteryx fossils brought good
money because they appeared to be strange new species.
7 - Discoveries
follow prediction. *Thomas
H. Huxley, Darwin’s British champion, whom he called his
"bulldog," had predicted that fossils of strange new species
would be found. *Hoyle, et. al, believe that, thus
encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.
8 - The Meyer
connection. Of the six
Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious feather
impressions. These three specimens were sent to *Hermann von Meyer, in
Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. *Hoyle
and company suggest that they came in to *Meyer as reptiles and left
with wings! It just so happens that *Meyer worked closely with the *Haberlein
family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile
fossils—and then sold them to the museums. It was the *Haberlein
family that made the profit—not the quarry owners. It would
be relatively easy for them to split some of it with *Meyer.
You can find all of the
above material in four issues of the *British Journal of Photography
(March-June 1985). Also see *W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of
Bird Fossil Is Challenged" in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1,
C14; *T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil ‘Fraud,’ " in
New Scientist 1467:49-50; and *G. Vines, "Strange Case of
Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud’ " in New Scientist 1447:3.
9 - Aftermath. As
might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary
community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of
evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists
held to their position.
This brought still
further uproar. It had been the same British Museum that had been
duped into the Piltdown Man hoax, which had been exposed only 32 years
earlier ("found" from 1908 to 1912 only a few miles
from Darwin’s old home, publicly announced that same year and shown to
be a hoax in 1953).
For a time, the British
Museum refused to relent, but the pressure was too great, so the museum
arranged for a special committee, composed of a select variety of
scientists, to review the matter. They examined the slabs; and in 1986
reported that, in their opinion, Archaeopteryx had no blobs. With this, the
British Museum announced that the case was closed and the slabs would be
unavailable for further examination. But the slab mismatch was not
denied, and it was far greater evidence than the blobs.
a flying reptile, just another bird, or a
fraud—a reptile with wings added?
Take your pick; either
way it is definitely not a transitional species, and has no transitions
leading to or from it.
3 - OTHER PROOFS
This chapter contains
the "showcase of evolution"—the best evidences it has to
offer that evolution has actually occurred and the theory is true.
In addition to the horse
series and Archaeopteryx, there are several other special
"evidences" in favor of evolution, which we have discussed in
some detail elsewhere. These include:
1 - The peppered moth
melanism’) is discussed in chapter 9, Natural Selection (*#1/7
2 - Darwin’s
Finches are discussed in
chapter 9, Natural Selection.
- Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and
Strata. - Trilobites are
discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
4 - Mutated bacteria
and sickle-cell anemia are
discussed in chapter 10, Mutations.
5 - Radiodating and
radiocarbon dating are discussed
in chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.
6 - The dates
attributed to the rock strata are
discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
7 - The existence of
dinosaurs in the past is discussed
in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
8 - The existence of
cavemen and the discovery of "hominid bones" is
discussed in chapter 13, Ancient Man.
9 - Subspecies
is discussed in chapter 9, Natural Selection.
10 - Changes in genes
by mutations is discussed in
chapter 12, Fossils and Strata. is
discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
11 - Similarities of
body parts and chemistry are
discussed in chapter 15, Similarities and Divergence.
12 - "Useless
organs" is discussed in
chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation.
13 - Embryonic
similarities are discussed
in chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation.
14 - The concept that
evolutionary theory is not under natural laws that
would invalidate it is discussed in chapter 18, Laws of Nature.
15 - Seafloor
spreading, continental drift, plate tectonics, and magnetic core changes
are discussed in chapter 20,
Paleomagnetism. [Due to a lack of space, we had to omit this
chapter; it will be found on our website.]
16 - Geographic
distribution of plants and animals is
discussed in Geographic Distribution [only available on our
17 - The
"overwhelming support" given by scientists to evolutionary
theory is discussed
throughout this book, but especially in chapters 1, History of
Evolutionary Theory and 23, Scientists Speak [For a fuller
account, go to History of Evolutionary Theory, on our website.
Many, many quotations by scientists refuting evolution, not included in
this paperback, will be found scattered throughout our website;
especially note chapter 23, Scientists Speak.]
18 - The belief that
only evolution should be taught in schools
is discussed on our website in chapter 34, Evolution and
Education [only available on our website].
19 - The concept that
evolution is nonrefutable and outside
the realm of falsification and rejection is discussed on our
website in chapter 37, Philosophy of Evolution [only available on
20 - The idea that
evolution is any kind of help to humanity or society
is discussed in chapter 19, Evolution, Morality and Violence.
In addition, other
"evidences" and "proofs" of evolution are discussed
elsewhere in this set of books. The evolutionary evidences we have not
discussed are of secondary, or even minuscule, importance. Some of them
are so complex that they are difficult for most people to grasp.
There are definite
scientific facts that totally refute the evolution of matter, stars,
planetoids, plants, or animals. These powerful refutations stand as a
strong rock in the midst of angry waves beating upon them. Learn the
most powerful of these proofs and share them with others!
Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the
judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here
today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That
one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a
few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more
likely to win your hearers.
SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST STELLAR ORIGINS—
of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of matter, stars,
planets, or moons would be these:
The impossibility of nothing making itself into something (chapter 2).
(2) The impossibility of gaseous matter (hydrogen gas clouds) sticking
together and forming itself by gravity or otherwise into stars or
planetoids (chapter 2). (3) The impossibility of random actions
of any kind in producing the intricate, interrelated, and complicated
orbits of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters (chapter
2). (4) The impossibility of linear, outward-flowing gas from a
supposed Big Bang changing to orbital or rotational movements
SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE CHANCE ORIGIN OF LIFE—Two
of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of life would be
these: (1) The
impossibility of random formation of the DNA molecule, amino acids,
proteins, or the cell (chapter 8). (2) The impossibility of
non-living matter producing living organisms (chapter 7).
SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE—Seven
of the powerful evidences against the chance origin or evolution of life
would be these: (1)
The total lack of past evidence of trans-species changes, as shown in
the fossil evidence (chapter 12). (2) The total lack of present
evidence of change from one species to another (chapters 9-10).
(3) The impossibility of random, accidental gene reshuffling
("natural selection") to produce new species (chapter 9).
(4) The impossibility of mutations, either singly or in clusters, to
produce new species (chapter 10). (5) The fact that there is no
other mechanism, other than natural selection or mutations, which could
possibly produce trans-species changes (chapters 9-10). (6) The
fact that changes within species, are not evolution (chapter 11).
(7) The beauty shown in the things of nature. An example of this would
be the beauty of the flowers. Random changes would not produce such
attractive forms and colors. (8) The marvelous purposive designs of the
things of nature. (We have a special section on our website on the
wonders of design in nature.)
SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST ALL TYPES OF EVOLUTION—Two
of the most powerful evidences
both inorganic and organic evolution, either in origin or development, would
be the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
We have elsewhere
discussed in detail all of the above proofs of Creationism.
4 - TEXTBOOK PROOFS
The textbooks generally
have a trite one-two-three
set of evolutionary "evidences," which generally consist of
the fact that there once were dinosaurs and cavemen along with
theories about "apeman" bones, fossils and strata dates,
mutations, similarities, vestiges, and recapitulation.
ALL THE PROOFS OF
The book, Evolution, by
*F.H.T. Rhodes (1974), lists all the evidences and "proofs" of
evolution. It is a fascinating
book. Looking through these "evidences," we find that
three-fourths of them consist of neutral biological, geological, or
chemical facts—which provide no actual evidence in favor of evolution.
The others consist of a variety of suggestive possibilities. As a rule,
the strongest "evidences" for the theory center around
variations within species.
Here is a brief overview
of the well-presented material in *Rhodes exhaustive book, covering the
evidences of evolution. You will
notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of
evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing
to read the following list!.
Many different species
exist. *Aristotle taught evolution. Spontaneous generation could not be
a cause of the origin of life. Ray and Linnaeus developed plant and
animal classification systems. *Lamarck’s theory of inheritable
changes was an error. History of evolutionary thought for past 200
years. *Darwin’s finding of various creatures on the Galapagos
islands. *Wallace and *Malthus’ search for a mechanism whereby
evolution could occur. *Darwin’s idea of "natural
selection." *Darwin’s influential book.
revised by later discovery of mutations. Mendel’s law of genetics.
*DeVries discovers mutations. *Morgan and *Sutton study fruit flies.
Surely, mutations must be the cause of all evolutionary change. General
information on chromosomes. Variations in fruit flies.
Species always appear to
reproduce their own kind. Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual
is a strong proof of evolution. All living things have cells,
protoplasm, metabolism, reproduction, and growth; therefore they must
all have come from a common source. All living things are
interdependent, so this shows evolution.
Different birds have
similarities, therefore they must have a common ancestor. Embryos are
alike, so they must have evolved from a common source. Organic
degeneration and "useless organs" (vestiges) are strong
evidences of evolution. Biochemical similarities indicate common
ancestry. Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved
this ability. Men can selectively breed new types of dogs, therefore
random mutations can develop new species.
Evolution must be
implied in the fact that although some birds breed in northern climates
others breed in warmer areas (population evolution). Drugs given to
bacteria must have caused mutations that damaged them. Peppered moths
come in two types, dark and light; and birds like to eat them. There are
different species of extinct fossils. There may be a "fossil
series" among Ceratopsian dinosaurs. The horse series.
Archaeopteryx. The platypus. The "earliest" organisms in the
sedimentary rock strata were smaller and slower, and the later ones were
faster and larger. A larger number of species are found in the later
strata than in the earlier strata.
Facts about genes,
chromosomes, cell division, Mendelian inheritance patterns, and laws of
inheritance. Probabilities of accomplishing changes within species (via
Mendelian genetics). Coin tossing. XX and XY mechanisms in reproduction.
Genes control reproduction. DNA is the key to inheritance. Protein
manufacture. Population genetics: variations exist among people (eye
color, height, etc.). Gene reshuffling through recombination and
crossing-over to produce changes within species.
Mutations produce new
characteristics. Genetic drift and geographic isolation also produces
changes within a species. Migration of populations into new areas may
cause evolution. Evolution can occur through natural selection (mating
preferences, predatory killing, etc.). Owls eat the white mice first.
Ocean currents brought creatures from South America rather than Central
and North America to Galapagos Islands. Birds eating peppered moths is
natural selection in action. Growth differences in fossil bears must be
due to the fact that they hibernated in different caves. Teeth become
smaller with age. Different sub-species of the same bird have different
length bills. Flowers, insects, etc., copycat one another’s shape,
color, etc. (mimicry). Sexual preferences of animals might make changes
within species. Sickle-cell anemia proves that natural selection occurs
A Devonian fish probably
climbed out of the water and become an amphibian; but, unfortunately, we
do not have the missing link when this happened. Transitional fossil
forms prove evolution, and we have one: the reptile-bird, Archaeopteryx.
Given enough time,
evolution can occur. Rock strata time charts prove long ages. Evolution
is occurring now in the Solomon Islands, as the Golden Whistler [bird]
makes new subspecies [picture of them indicates they all look just about
alike]. Minks change color in winter, and this surely must have been
caused by mutations at some time in the past.
Hydrogen must have
clumped together to form stars. Perhaps it only happened in the past,
but perhaps it is happening now. A cloud came together and formed the
earth. All the planets have six of the elements, so this is an important
proof of something.
*Miller and *Urey took
complicated lab equipment and produced some dead amino acids.
There are many fossil
outlines, impressions, casts, tracks, etc. Stone artifacts [arrowheads,
etc.] are the most common remains of prehistoric man. The oldest fossils
are about 2.7 billion years old. Most fossil animals suddenly appeared
about 600 million years ago. Fossilized marine invertebrates. The oldest
vertebrates [bony fish], insects, land animals, and plants. The reptiles
and dinosaurs. The mammals.
Apes and monkeys.
Reconstructed "ape-men." Suggested evolution of man from
monkey. Stone tools. Cave paintings. "Evolution" of human
societies. Evolutionary theory, although intrinsically separate from
morality, is still not bad for society. The "future evolution"
of man in regard to pollution control, dwindling resources,
the evidence for evolution in an entire, recent, excellent book
dedicated to the subject. Throughout it all, did you find even one
clear-cut evidence for evolution?
LISTING THE PROOFS OF
In concluding this
chapter, let us briefly overview the strongest evidences of evolution,
as presented in a number of evolution textbooks:
Aristotle taught evolution.
2 - Linnaeus
classified plants and animals.
3 - Darwin
wrote an influential book.
4 - Morgan
studied fruit flies.
5 - Every
living thing has chromosomes.
6 - People age
as they become older.
7 - All living
things have cells.
8 - All birds
9 - Woodpeckers
punch holes in trees.
10 - Birds
breed in different climates.
11 - There are
both light and dark moths.
12 - Some
species have become extinct.
13 - Mendel
discovered inheritance patterns.
14 - Coin
tossing exemplifies evolution.
15 - DNA is the
key to inheritance.
16 - Variants
exist among people.
17 - Changes
have taken place within species.
18 - Mutations
produce new characteristics.
19 - Migration
may cause evolution.
20 - Mating
preferences can cause evolution.
21 - Predatory
killing can cause evolution.
22 - Owls eat
white mice first.
23 - Birds eat
24 - Different
bears are different sizes.
25 - Teeth
become smaller with age.
26 - Mutations
produced sickle-cell anemia.
27 - A fish
must have climbed out of water.
28 - Time can
Evolutionary charts prove long ages.
30 - Minks
change color in winter.
31 - Stone
tools have been found.
32 - Dinosaurs
33 - Some
earlier peoples lived in caves.
34 - Cave paintings have been
CHAPTER 17 -
STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED
1 - List ten of the most
foolish of the textbook proofs of evolution.
2 - There are 15 reasons
why the so-called "horse series" could not be correct. List
eight which you consider to be the most significant.
3 - Archaeopteryx is
either a type of bird or a carefully contrived fake. After reading all
the evidence given in this chapter, write a paper on the alternative you
prefer (bird or fake). State your reasons and be prepared to defend
4 - In each of the
following four categories, which is the most powerful evidence against
that type of evolution (if you consider all equally strong, say so)? (1)
the three special evidences against stellar evolution; (2) the two
special proofs against a chance origin of life; (3) the seven special
evidences against the evolution of life; (4) the two special evidences
against all types of evolution.
COULD NOT DO THIS
The rufous woodpecker of India
and southeast Asia likes to eat ants. Those stinging tree ants, in turn,
vigorously attack every intruder that comes near their nest. But when it
is time for this woodpecker to make its nest, it flies to the
football-size nest of stinging tree ants, tunnels in, lays its eggs
there, and then settles down to incubate them—with stinging ants all
about it. Yet they do not bother it. When the baby birds hatch, the
mother feeds them till they fly away. During that time, it has not eaten
one ant, and they have not attacked it while always driving off all
other birds and predators. Then the woodpecker flies off, and once again
begins eating ants in their ant nests.
You have just completed
Chapter 17 Evolutionary Showcase
Go to the next file in
Chapter 18 The Laws of