“The study of fossils provides strong evidence for evolution. ” (Campbell, 260) Or does it? The fact is that the fossil record is a silent testimony against Darwin’s erroneous theories of the fossil record documenting his idea of macroevolution. The book, Biology: Concepts and Connections (hereafter referred to as Biology), clearly agrees with the evolutionary outlook of “fossils [being] a rich source of evidence for evolution. ” (Campbell, 260) However, this book, along with most evolutionists, avoids the substantial questions the fossil record actually represents.
In the rock layers of the earth, scientists have found many fossils (preserved traces of plants and animals). According to evolutionary paleontologists (scientists studying fossil remains), the history of this world is recorded in the rocks that make up the earth’s crust and the fossils that they contain. Evolutionists claim that these rocks have been forming, wearing away, and reforming since the world began. (Halbach, 387) Although Biology often overlooks the criteria arguing against evolution, it still contains the gaps that the evolutionary theory possesses.
Among these gaps are the arguments against the fossil record – circular reasoning, reversed geological columns, polystrate fossils, sediment accumulation, inconclusive physical evidence, and lack of transitional fossils. A scientist named Gliedman gives an excellent summary reflecting upon the latter dispute: “No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape…. The problem for gradualists [those who support gradual evolution or orthodox Darwinian evolution] is that… hese ancestral species remain essentially unchanged throughout their million-year life spans’, yet each of them differs substantially from its immediate predecessor. ” (Glideman, 90-91) Biology holds the evolutionary view of older fossils deep in the strata are those of the primitive evolving organisms. The youngest rocks, which are on the topmost strata of the earth’s crust, are supposed to contain fossils of organisms which have more recently evolved – and therefore are similar to organisms alive today.
Geologists and paleontologists have devised a geological time chart to show what they assume to be the evolutionary outline of the earth’s history. According to this time scale, the earth’s history can be divided into eras; each era can be subdivided into periods; and each period can be further divided into epochs. This geologic time chart is said to correspond to the geological column (vertical rock layers) which exist upon the earth. The vertical rock layers are given the same names as the time divisions of the geological time chart.
Characteristic fossils are found in each layer, called index fossils; scientists see what a newly discovered fossil’s age is by comparing it with these index fossils and the geologic time chart. (These index fossils were actually made up by Charles Leyell in the 1800s, who also devised the geological column. ) Well, Biology actually does hint at this circular reasoning existing in the evolutionary science world: the geologist dates rock layers by checking what type of fossils they contain, and the paleontologist dates fossils by checking to see what age has been assigned to the rocks in which they are found. Campbell, 297) It also may surprise you that only one place on earth does the entire geological column occur – the textbooks. The truth is that there are only a few places on earth where as many as two or three complete systems of rocks can be seen in “proper sequence. ” Biology obliviously looks over this, and makes it appear that the geological time chart is always present in such a way. Additionally, in many places, the order of the strata is exactly reversed from what the geologic column proposes. (Habach, 388)
Another quandary the fossil record contains is the polystrate fossil (a fossil that has been fossilized through thousands of years worth of sediment). Again, our book fails to ever cite these natural discoveries or give reasons for their existence. In Joggins, Nova Scotia, a polystrate tree was found in layers of sedimentary rock. Now, according to evolutionary view, each one of these layers account for millions of years; in that case, such a tree either stood there for millions of years without rotting or falling while sediments buried it or it grew through the sock layers looking for light.
Additionally, Silvia Baker and Charles Schuchert display pictures of vertical trees in the Coal Measures sandstone of St. -Etienne, France; some of these fossils were even upside-down through many layers, including layers of coal. (Baker, 12; Schuchert, 784) The odds are that these polystrate fossils did not sit for hundreds of thousands of years while being slowly fossilized. The accumulation of sediment to form fossils is never mentioned in our biology text, either.
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. (Morris, 155) The water level of the oceans (due to the melting ice caps) is rising at such a rate that the continents would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (McLean, 31) With such data being scientific reality, Biology does not support these facts by applying such dates to fossils as it does.
Lastly, the theory of evolution suggests that the fossil record will indicate a general pattern of slow transformations of primitive creatures into our more sophisticated creatures of today. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained: “Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ” Even the major evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution. However, our science book supports that the biological field has found a small handful of “links” to our present species; some of these fossils have been hoaxes, some have been used as index fossils, and others hold no support for evolutionary development. Even an encyclopedia that accepts evolution as fact states that “the fossil record is incomplete. ” (Stanley, 1) However, biologists still believe that the fossils needed exist are in the ground beneath, but they are just not yet found.
Obviously, such assumptions cannot be based upon biological observations; also, it too difficult to test any “evidence” fossils present. The fact is that evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution “science,” as our text assumes, is to confuse fairy tales with facts. It is true that evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science – it is simply another scientific theory.