A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By
transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are
"in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil
record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth
should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor
changes as species were evolving.

The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and
extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's
view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.

Consider...

The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are
found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as
though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on
the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make
use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an
entrance ramp.

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies
are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they
develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the
transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a
creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal
progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and
amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and
not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly
connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The
morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.

Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.

Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32
such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.

Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each
evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms
to support this assertion.

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial
"missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the
day.

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.

The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a
reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.

Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not
been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since
Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic
problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life
than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns
indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist
position.
 
Continue with Early Man
 
Back to Home Page