The Evolution Deceit
The absence of transitional fossils did not look like an insuperable one in Darwin’s time. Darwin was amazed that not a single intermediate fossil to confirm his theory had been discovered in any of the Earth’s strata, but he still believed they would be “found in the future.” In the chapter titled “Difficulties on Theory” of his the Origin of Species he wrote:
... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.1
Transitional fossils, which have refuted Darwin’s expectations and not a single one of which has been discovered over the last 150 years, have emerged as one of the greatest objections to his theory. Because excavations are being carried out all the time and not a single one of the millions of even billions of transitional fossils that should have been found ever has been. The lack of transitional fossils means the death of Darwinism, and is something that the adherents of the superstitious faith that is Darwinism cannot accept. For that reason, Darwinists resorted to traditional methods and began manufacturing fictitious transitional fossils. Today, when we look at publications that are Darwinist in origin we see that all the living fossils depicted as transitional forms are in fact the product of fraud. This false evidence, which may sometimes be based on extinct life forms, sometimes on fictitious illustrations, sometimes on just one single fossil tooth and sometimes on skulls fraudulently manufactured in a laboratory environment, are all important proofs that transitional fossils do not exist and that Darwinism is a deception.
Professor of Mathematics Wolfgang Smith is one of those scientists who openly admits that transitional fossils do not exist:
On the fundamental level, it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and the so-called missing links are indeed non-existent. 2
The evolutionist paleontologist Stephen Stanley makes this comment on the absence of transitional fossils:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphology transition, and hence offers no evidence that gradualistic model can be valid. 3
The University of Kansas geologist Ronald R. West comments:
If evolution is true, the fossil record should demonstrate:
1. The oldest rocks that bear evidence of life would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of fossilization.
2. Younger rocks would contain evidence of more complex forms of life.
3. There would be a gradual change in life forms from simple to complex.
4. There would be huge numbers of transitional forms. 4
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution. 5
Darwinists have been unable to put forth a single genuine intermediate form. Not a single transitional fossil has ever been unearthed. There is not a single example of a genuine transitional form on display in museums of evolution. More than 250 million fossils have been discovered to date, but not one is a transitional fossil. They are all, whether still living or extinct, fully formed and perfect forms.
The lack of transitional forms is not such that even Darwinists can deny. Faced by various difficulties, they sometimes are forced to admit it. One such statement comes from the evolutionist paleontologist Colin Patterson:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book [Evolution], If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them. . . . I will lay it on the line – there is not one single transitional form in the fossil record for which one could make a watertight argument. 6
The absence of intermediate forms is not something that should be glossed over with sophistry as by the majority of Darwinists or else regarded as unimportant. No transitional forms means no evolution. One or a few fossils are not enough to validate the theory of evolution. There would have to be millions of them. But there exists not one single transitional fossil. This reality – that just about 100% of the fossil record has been unearthed in the 2000s and that not one of the millions of transitional fossils that there should theoretically have been has been found – is by itself great and very powerful evidence that evolution is a lie.
Mark Ridley of the Oxford University Department of Zoology describes how all the fossil record does is show that Darwinism is a lie:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether a gradualist or a punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...7
The interesting thing is the way that, as we shall be seeing in due course – and in the face of this reality – Darwinists still try to depict fully formed, complete and perfect fossils as transitional forms, or else manufacture their own. The principal reason for their resorting to fraud is without doubt their inability to produce any scientific evidence. The main element that makes Darwinism a fraud is that the followers of this superstitious religion have to engage in hoaxes, lies and deception. The adherents of this superstitious faith claim to be acting in the name of science, but the findings of science openly refute the theory of evolution. In Darwinists’ eyes, Darwinism can only be propped up by means of countless lies. Their “transitional form found” propaganda that constitutes part of this is also a huge fraud.
1 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280
2 Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford IL, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1988, p. 8.
3 Stephen Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco CA, W. H. Freeman, 1979, p. 39.
4 Bert Thompson, Biological Evolution (Montgomery, AL:Apologetics Press, Inc., 1989), pp. 16-17
5 Ronald R. West, “Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism,” Compass, vol. 45 (May 1968): p. 216. Ronald R. West is an assistant professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University.
6 Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1984), p. 89, quoting Colin Patterson. Dr. Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of National History, London; owner and proprietor of the most complete fossil collection in the world.
7 Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25, 1981): p. 831. Ridley was in the department of zoology at Oxford University.