In 1859, 150 years ago, Darwin said the following in his book the
Origin of Species :
WHY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly
finegradations, do we not everywhere see Innumerable
transItIonalforms? Why is not all nature In confusIon instead of the
species being, as we see them, well defIned?
Innumerable transItIonal forms must have exIsted, why do wenot fInd
them embeddedIn 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 mytheory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of
Species, pp. 172, 280)
Darwin's words he uttered 150 years agohave now come true!
N ow, as Darwin saidin the 19th century, there is actually NO SUCH
THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM.
More than 100 million fossils have been unearthed in the Earth's
crust. Yet NOT ONE OF THEM IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM.
These 100 million fossils unearthed reveal that NATURE IS NOT IN A
STATE OF CONFUSION, as Darwin anticipated, BUT IS RATHER FULL OF
COMPLETE, PERFECT, FLAWLESS LIVING THINGS WITH ALL THEIR PARTS INTACT.
IN NO GEOLOGICAL FORMATION or STRATUM IS THERE ONE TRANSITIONAL FORM
FOSSIL that shows the alleged connection between living things.
Above all, new sciences have shown that CELLS , CHROMOSOMESand
PROTEINS ARE EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX.
It has been discovered that DNA possesses ENOUGH INFORMATION TO FILL
ONE MILLION ENCYCLOPEDIA PAGES and it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a
marvelous structure TO HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE BY CHANCE.
It has been realized that atoms – the most basic building blocks of
everything – HAVE A PERFECT ORDER AND COMPLEXITY.
This glorious order and unique, flawless artistry on Earth has been
revealed as, again just as Darwin said, THE GRAVEST OBJECTION THAT
WOULD BE RAISED AGAINST HIS THEORY.
Contemporary Darwinists have confirmed the truth of this legacy:
Niles Eldredge (Paleontologist at Harvard University):
Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of
fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the
Cambrian Period (theoldest division of the Paleozoic Era ) does pose a
fascinating intellectual challenge . [1]
Derek W. Ager (Paleontologist at University College, Swansea):
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail,
whetherat 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 . [2]
Mark Czarnecki (Evolutionist paleontologist):
A major problem in proving the theory [of evolution] hasbeen the
fossil record, the imprints of vanished species preserved in the
Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces
of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants — instead, species
appear and disappear abruptly , and this anomaly has fueled the
creationist argument that each species was created by God . [3]
Carlton E. Brett (Professor of Geology at the University of Cincinnati):
Did life on Earth change steadily and gradually through time? The
fossil record emphatically says "no. " [4]
Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of
London's Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which
each type of organism was derived." Iwill lay it on the line — there
is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertightargument .
[5]
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and
paleontology does not provide them . [6]
Mark Ridley (Zoologist at Oxford University):
In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as
evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special
creation. . . [7]
Steven M. Stanley (Professor of Paleontology at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa):
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
evolution [the evolution of a species' entire population into a new
species] accomplishing amajor morphologic [structural] transition and
hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model [of evolution]
can be valid . [8]
Hoimar Von Ditfurth (A German Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry
and Evolutionist Science Writer):
When we look back, we see there is no need to have been surprised at
our failure to find those transitionalforms searched for almost
painfully. Because the great likelihood is that such transitional
stages neverexisted . [9]
Tom Kemp (Curator of The Zoological Collections at Oxford University:
In no single adequately documented case is it possible to tracea
transition, species by species, from one genus to another. [10]
Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of
London's Natural History Museum):
[Stephen Jay] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are
hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils .
[11]
We therefore congratulate Darwin!
From the scientific proofs of 21st century, it now appears that Darwin
was very foresighted indeed! 150 years ago, he said, "There is even
not one single transitional fossil." And now, millionsof fossil
specimens confirm that there is NOTONE SINGLE TRANSITIONALFORM FOSSIL
WHATSOEVER! Darwin's legacy has been proven right! On the 200th
anniversary of Darwin's birth, we congratulate Darwin on his prudence
and on this important prediction.
[1] Niles Eldredge The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at
Creationism, WashingtonSquare Press, New York, 1982, p.44
[2] Derek A. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of
the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, p. 133
[3] Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade,"
MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56
[4] Carlton E. Brett, "Stasis: Life in the Balance." Geotimes, Vol.
40, Mar. 1995, p. 18
[5] From a letter dated 10 April, 1979, quoted in L. D. Sunderland's
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and OtherProblems, 4th edition, Master Books,
1988
[6] David B]. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution
, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 487
[7] Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?," New Scientist, Vol. 90; June
25, 1981, p. 831
[8] Stanley, Stephen M., Macroevolution--Pattern and Process, San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1979, p. 39
[9] Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2, ["The Silent
Night of the Dinosaurs 2"] p. 22.
[10] T homas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals,
New York: Academic Press, 1982, p. 319
[11] Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderland dated April 10,
1979, quoted in L.D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma, p. 89
--
--
e- - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com.my/m?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en ▓███▓ - -
No comments:
Post a Comment