The fossil record has been continually heralded as “proof” of evolution. It is still offered as the only or primary scientific evidence that evolution has really occurred. In fact, according to the National Center for Science Education, most evolutionists believe the fossil record provides the critical evidence for evolution by preserving the record of the past that demonstrates gradual evolutionary change has occurred between the lower and higher life forms.(1) Yet contrary to common thought, the fossil record actually gives no evidence in support of evolution theory.
Lets look at what would be expected to be found if either evolution or creation are true. If evolution were true we would predict that the most ancient strata in which fossils are found would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of leaving a fossil. As successively younger strata were searched, we would expect to see the gradual transition of these relatively simple forms of life into more and more complex forms of life. As living forms diverged into the millions of species which have existed in the past and which exist today, we would expect to find a transition of one form into another. We would predict that new types would not appear suddenly in the fossil record possessing all of the characteristics which are used to define that group, but would retain characteristics used to define the ancestral group.
Conversely, if creation is true we would expect to find an explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex forms of life without evidence of ancestral forms. We would predict that all of the major types of life, that is, the basic plant and animal forms, would appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms linking one basic kind to another. Each major kind at its earliest appearance in the fossil record would possess, fully developed, all the characteristics that are used to define that particular kind.
So what does the fossil record actually show? Do we see the most primitive forms of life in the most ancient strata, followed by more complex forms of life in the successively younger strata, or do we see an abrupt appearance of both simple and complex life forms together? And have the myriad of transitional fossils, which must be present if evolution is true, been found?
The first abundant fossil record of complex invertebrates appears in rocks of the so-called Cambrian Period. Evolutionists date the rocks of this period to about 530 million years ago. In the Cambrian rocks are found such a great variety of fossils that it is commonly referred to as the “Cambrian explosion” in geological literature. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors, nor the transitional fossils that evolution requires. As well-known evolutionist Richard Dawkins puts it:
It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.(2)
The rocks that generally underlie the Cambrian rocks are simply called Precambrian rocks. Some are thousands of feet thick, and many are perfectly suitable for the preservation of fossils. If his theory were true, Darwin wrote, the Precambrian world must have “swarmed with living creatures.” Many billions times billions of the intermediates would had to have lived and died during the vast stretch of time required for the evolution of such a diversity of complex organisms as those found in the Cambrian rocks. Certainly evidence of these transitional forms would have been found in the Precambrian rocks if evolution had actually occurred.
As a matter of fact, not a single undisputed such fossil has ever been found. There are many reports in the scientific literature of the discovery of microscopic single-celled fossils in the Precambrian rocks. However, it is questionable that these microfossils are even of biological origin. But even if these supposed single-celled organisms are of biological origin, we must still find the evidence of intermediates between them and the vast variety of creatures found in the Cambrian. Yet not one of these intermediates has been found. On the other hand, the Cambrian explosion is exactly what is predicted by creation theory. This sudden appearance of complex invertebrates, without a hint of ancestors or transitional forms, is still baffling and embarrassing to evolutionists today.
The lack of transitional forms does not stop here. It is actually the hallmark of every part of the fossil record. After 160+ years of intense searching, a large number of obvious transitional forms would have been discovered if the predictions of evolution theory are valid. It seems obvious that if we find fossils of the invertebrates which were supposed to have been ancestral to fishes, and if we find fossils of the fishes, we surely ought to find the fossils of the transitional forms. As a matter of fact, the discovery of only five or six of the transitional forms scattered through time would be sufficient to document evolution. Yet none of these transitional fossils have been found. Darwin himself was very concerned about the lack of transitional forms present in the fossil record:
…[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?(3)
In Darwin’s day only a tiny fraction of all fossil-bearing strata had been examined and there were only a very small number of professional paleontologists. Therefore, the absence of intermediates, although damaging, was not fatal. It was reasonable to hope that many would eventually be found. However, in the subsequent 160+ years, while the rocks have continually yielded new and even bizarre forms of life, what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s “innumerable transitional forms.”
The predicted intermediate fossils have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record. With an estimated 250 million cataloged fossils of some 250,000 fossil species, the problem certainly does not appear to be one of an imperfect fossil record. Many scientists have now conceded that the fossil data are sufficiently complete to provide an accurate portrait of the geological record.(4) As professor of geology David Raup stated:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have 250,000 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…(5)
In spite of the fossil record, evolutionists continue to claim the fossil record has provided numerous, indisputable transitional forms. Such statements are demonstrably false. Either they are uninformed or engaging in propaganda. Scientists who have thoroughly and objectively looked at the evidence know the truth. Noted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, an evolutionist, has stated:
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offer no support for gradual change…All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”(6)
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 fossils…Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth…In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’(7)
Prior to Gould’s time, Dr. George Gaylord Simpson was one of the world’s best-known evolutionists. In his book, The Major Features of Evolution, he admitted:
...it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.(8)
Nothing has changed since Simpson wrote this in 1965. D. V. Ager made this statement in “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” stating:
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student…have now been debunked…The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.(9)
Dr. Steven M. Stanley, professor of paleobiology at Johns Hopkins University and recipient of the Schuchert award of the Paleontological Society and a Guggenheim Fellowship, has honestly written:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic [gradual] evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.(10)
So what can an evolutionist do when faced with the clear facts? Some evolutionists have chosen to deny that the fossil record was ever relevant !! Anthropologist Vincent Sarich stated:
No matter what the creationists may pretend, the fossil record is not, and never has been, our major source of information about evolutionary relationships.(11)
So it's pretty funny that some scientists admit that the fossil record does not prove evolution to be true. Keeping, though, with their preconceived evolutionary beliefs, they will still claim other evidence supports evolution. However, as this website shows, every other line of supposed evidence is flawed, and fatally so.
Other evolutionary scientists choose to misrepresent the facts. Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, and the author of the book Speciation states:
Since 1859, paleontologists have turned up Darwin's missing evidence: fossils in profusion, with many sequences showing evolutionary change. In large and small organisms, we can trace, through successive layers of the fossil record, evolutionary changes occurring in lineages.(12)
Coyne is clearly, either unknowingly or intentionally, ignoring the experts in the field of paleontology. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., longer ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced. There are only variations of already existing themes. Fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time.
Although the “family tree” showing evolution from single-celled creatures up to humans continues to be presented in most high school and college textbooks as accepted scientific fact, many honest and empirical scientists flatly deny its validity. As early as the 1930s and 1940s, leaders in paleontology realized the deficiency. But without an alternative to replace this “family tree,” evolutionist have been left with no choice but to keep presenting it.
It would be pointless to cite the unending examples of the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. Anyone who doubts the reality of the gaps may either take the word of leading paleontologists, some of whom I quoted above, or simply open one of the standard works on paleontology such as Romer’s Vertebrate Paleontology(13) or Schrock and Twenhofel’s Invertebrate Paleontology,(14) and examine any of the stratigraphic charts showing the abundance of various groups during different geological eras and dotted lines suggesting their hypothetical phylogenetic relationships. Even a cursory glance shows clearly that profound and undoubted discontinuities do in fact exist.
Despite the generally discontinuous character of the fossil record there are some exceptional cases where a species does appear to be intermediate with respect to other groups. Evolutionists pounce on these oddities as proof of evolution. But with honest examination it is clear they are not intermediates at all.
The classic case of a supposed missing link is Archaeopteryx.. This primitive bird did indeed possess certain skeletal reptilian features – teeth, a long tail, and claws on its wings. However, in one respect, flight, the most characteristic feature of birds, Archaeopteryx was already truly a bird. How could it be transitional?
Understandably, the stakes are high and the fame and fortune great for anyone who can find a true intermediate fossil. This obviously can and has lead to fraud. In 1999 the National Geographic Society announced its purchase of a fossil which it claimed was the “missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly.” It turned out that this fossil, named Archaeoraptor, had the exact features scientists were expecting to find. Unfortunately for them, this was because it was fabricated that way by a clever forger, knowing it would bring big bucks in the international fossil market.
One would hope that a fraud like that of Archaeoraptor would have been widely reported. However, at an April 2000 Symposium on Dinosaur Bird Evolution, the fraud was largely ignored, mostly because a new “missing link” had supposedly been found. Paleontologists proclaimed Bambiraptor to be the most bird-like dinosaur yet discovered. However, the reproduction displayed at the conference contained hair-like projections and feathers, none of which were found with the actual fossils. Because their preconceived theory requires these features, the paleontologists chose to add them. The unaltered fossil does not give evidence for it being a missing link.
Another group designated intermediate is a group of reptile-like amphibians, which are supposed intermediates between reptiles and amphibians. One representative of which is Seymouria. In terms of purely skeletal characteristics, Seymouria would appear to be a convincing intermediate. However, there is a serious drawback. The major difference between amphibians and reptiles lies in their reproductive systems. Amphibians lay their eggs in water and their larvae undergo a complex metamorphosis (like a tadpole) before reaching the adult stage. Reptiles develop inside a hard shell-encased egg and are perfect replicas of the adult upon first emergence. There is no possible way there could be intermediates between the two. This demonstrates that skeletal characteristics alone are insufficient for designating a particular organism or species as intermediate.
There are too many other supposed intermediates, all of which do not hold up under scrutiny, to mention here. Paleontologists continue to look for the Holy Grail, as finding such a fossil would make them famous. But the evidence is just not there, contrary to what the general public is lead to believe..
Hardly a month passes without new reports of “soft tissue” discovered in fossils. Is it possible that soft tissue could last millions of years? To answer this question we need to see what laboratory studies show us about tissue decay.
Few scientists know about or accept evidence of original tissues being found in fossils. Of course, if fossils are traces of life that lived a million or more years ago, then we have no reason to believe original organic molecules should be preserved, let alone cells or whole tissues like blood vessels. But many fossils do have these stunning features. Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team caught the world’s attention with a Science paper in 2005 that described intact blood vessels and red blood cells in a T. rex bone. In fact, secular scientists have been reporting similar findings for decades.
Normally, organic materials should only last a relatively short time. Normally, scavengers, water, and microbes destroy whole carcasses after a few years at most. However, animal remains buried in mud, then dried into hardened sediments kept scavengers from them. If this were not the case we would have no fossils at all. Rapid drying would also limit microbe growth.
Scientists have conducted reliable, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the chemistry of decay at work in biomolecules, including bone collagen and DNA. It was found that bone collagen, under optimal conditions, might last for several hundred thousand years, but no more than one million, and certainly not millions of years.(25) Studies have found that DNA can last no more than 650,000 years before totally disintegrating. (26) So, even the oldest possible ages for these biochemicals is less than one million years.
There are many scientific reports of original proteins being found in fossils from around the globe. One report described tube worm fossils from pre-Cambrian rock layers, obtained from deep Siberian cores. These intact and still-flexible proteins, were given an evolutionary age of 551 million years !!
To secular scientists, the geologic column represents many millions to hundreds of millions of years. Yet fossils have been found in nearly every layer that contain original tissue. Proven, repeatable science indicates this is simply impossible. However, these finding easily fit into the biblical time scale.
The subject of human fossils and their supposed precursors is really an irrelevant subject. The lack of transitional fossils, from the simplest creatures to the most complex, eliminates the possibility that evolution from molecules to man ever took place. However, this is a subject of interest to many people. Many obscure paleoanthropologists have become famous overnight by announcing sensational and extravagant claims following the find of some fragmentary remains of a creature he believes to be related to man’s origin.
In the twentieth century, numerous fossil discoveries supplied what appeared to be the transitional links in the evolutionary chain leading to modern humans. In a few cases sensational “finds” have even been exposed as hoaxes. Most claims eventually fade into obscurity as further research and discoveries invalidate the claims. Unfortunately, most people only see or hear the headlines touting dramatic discoveries, and never hear the news that those claims have later been invalidated or debunked.
The interpretation of the fossil evidence is highly influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices. Experts in the field of paleontology readily admit that their field is the most subjective and contentious in all of biology. It is hardly a firm foundation for the far-reaching claims of Darwinism. Fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, often depending upon preconceptions.
A popular myth is that the hominid fossil evidence virtually proves human evolution. The reality is that this evidence has been a disappointment to evolutionists and is being de-emphasized.
One reason fossils have not solved the problem of human origins is the difficulty or impossibility of determining ancestor-descendant relationships. Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, stated that the conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is...
The conventional theory of human evolution states humans evolved from apes to man through the following stages.
Ramapithecus was first discovered in 1932. Initially it was declared to be a branch on the evolutionary tree leading to humans. But this conclusion was based only on similarities between a few Ramapithecus teeth and jaw fragments, and those of modern humans. Today, most evolutionists classify Ramapithecusas an extinct ape. Evolutionary scientists have amply documented their abandonment of the claim that Ramapithecus is a link between ape and man.
Australopithecus is the next creature said to be a human ancestor, which evolutionists claim lived 1 to 4.5 million years ago. These animals had small brains, about one-third the space occupied by human brains. They also had large, ape-like jaws, with cheek teeth similar to modern gorillas.
In 1974 Donald Johanson discovered several pieces of Australopithecus afarensis skeletons in Ethiopia, which he alleged were human ancestors. One particular Australopithecus was given the name “Lucy.” The media attention was enormous, yet upon closer examination many leading scientists (most of them evolutionists) disagreed that these bones represent a step in human evolution. Detailed study of the fossils has proven that Australopithecus was an ape and in no way related to man. Donald Johanson himself, the discoverer of Lucy, later concluded that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) was not related to humans at all.
Homo habilis, as a taxon, has been flawed from the start. In 1959, Louis and Mary Leakey, working in Tanzania, found a large cranium in association with stone tools. This led Leakey to believe this individual was a tool maker. Some of Leakey’s peers believed that Leakey knew all along that this skull was simply an Australopithecus. But the financial support Leakey needed to continue his work does not come from discovering fossil primates. It comes from finding human ancestors. When Leakey found a newer fossil that was a better candidate for human ancestry, he then admitted this fossil was simply an australopithecine.(16)
Thoughtful evolutionists were troubled from the start by Homo habilis. It was not until 1986 that the problem was solved. Strong evidence was discovered that the category Homo habilis is not a legitimate taxon but is composed of a mixture of material from at least two separate taxa. The new discoveries removed Homo habilis as a legitimate transition between australopithecines and Homo erectus, although many evolutionists found it difficult to accept. However, the fossil record clearly shows that the Homo erectus fossils are contemporaneous with the entire Homo habilis fossil material. In other words, not one of the supposed Homo habilis fossils can be dated earlier than any of the Homo erectus fossils. Hence, Homo habilis could not in any way be ancestral to Homo erectus.
Homo erectus, supposedly the closest link to Homo Sapiens, furnishes us with powerful evidence that falsifies the concept of human evolution. First, Homo erectus is not morphologically distinct enough to warrant its being classified as a species separate from Homo sapiens.(17) By every legitimate standard applicable, the fossil and cultural evidence indicate that it should be included in the Homo sapien taxon.
Second, Homo erectus fossil are not found in the relevant time frame to serve as a legitimate transitional form. Evolutionists state in the literature that Homo erectus existed between 300,000 years ago and 1.8 million years ago. The dating of Homo erectus from 300,000 y.a. to 1.8 m.y.a creates a “comfort zone” for evolutionists because these dates position Homo erectus in the relevant time period to serve as that much needed transitional taxon that progresses toward modern humans.(18) It fit their preconceived notions.
It is very deceptive that evolutionary writers use these date ranges as generalizations without listing all the individual fossils that do not fall within these dates. If you look at the actual cataloged fossil finds, at least 51% of fossils having Homo erectus morphology fall outside the purported ranges. By dating back to almost 2 million years ago, they overlap the entire Homo habilis population.(19) So as stated above, this makes it impossible that Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus.
In addition, approximately 48% of all Homo erectus fossil individuals are definitely dated more recently than 300,000 y.a. and as young as 6,000 y.a.(20) The vast majority of people, including most scientists, don’t look at the actual evidence closely and simply accept the literature at face value. However, Marvin Lubenow, in his book Bones of Contention, takes a very detailed look, and is where I drew most of this information.(21)
The theory that Homo sapiens supposedly evolved out of Homo erectus has other problems as well. Evolutionists are not comfortable in having Homo erectus being dated even as early as 300,000 y.a. The current view is that modern humans originated in Africa at about 200,000 y.a. However, this is out of the question if Homo erectus are dated as early as 300,000 y.a. The span of just 100,000 years is simply not nearly enough time for sapien to evolve from erectus.
These incontrovertible facts of the fossil record effectively falsify the concept that Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens. In reality, it falsifies the entire concept of human evolution. Fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to 4.5 m.y.a., (according to the evolutionary time scale). That suggests that true humans were on the scene even before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record. .
As far as we can tell from the fossil record, when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. The human fossil record, like the fossil record in general, has failed to furnish evidence for evolution. It further confirms that the myth is not the theory of creation. The myth is actually the theory of evolution, a myth invented to explain our origin without God.
Another myth is that of Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man was first discovered over a century ago in a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. He was initially classified as a semi-erect brutish sub-human, most likely due to evolutionary bias, plus the fact that the individual on whom this assessment was made had been crippled with arthritis.
Furthermore, it is known that these people suffered severely from rickets, caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D. This condition results in softening of bone and consequent malformation. It is now known that Neanderthal man was fully erect and in many details was indistinguishable from modern man. Today he is classified Homo sapien—fully human.
Yet even today the popular media still depicts Neanderthal as sub-human or a link between ape and man. The fossil record clearly shows, however, that modern humans were contemporary with Neanderthal people and even preceded the Neanderthals in some cases by thousands of years.
When you consider the preconceived notions that continue to direct the study of origins, it is reasonable to ask if this field is myth or actual science. American Museum of Natural History Curator Ian Tattersall acknowledged that:
…in paleoanthropology, the patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mindsets as from the evidence itself.(22)
Arizona State anthropologist Geoffrey Clark stated:
…we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions—a process that is, at once, both political and subjective….paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science.(23)
If the practitioners of paleoanthropology themselves acknowledge the highly subjective nature of the science, how reliable can it be? There is very little agreement in the interpretation of the fossil record among paleoanthropologists. There is so much controversy around so many different subjects that, if you really study the issues, you would likely become cynical that any of the issues will ever be resolved. Berkeley evolutionary biologist F. Clark Howell wrote:
There is no encompassing theory of [human] evolution…Alas, there never really has been…it is probably true that an encompassing scenario…is beyond our grasp, now if not forever.(24)
The general public is rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins. Instead, we are simply fed the latest version of somebody’s theory, without being told that paleoanthropologists themselves cannot agree over it. The following page, Punctuated Equilibria, is prime example.
Copyright © 2025 Clearing the Path - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy