Chapter 4: "Missing Links" are Missing!

As a college student I was convinced that = evolution was=20 true and that, in time, scientists would find the missing = pieces. I=20 thought science would ultimately provide us with an unbroken = chain of=20 evidence supporting the evolution and relationship of all = things. Many=20 scientists are still hoping for this evidence. However, Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and=20 Paleontology at Harvard, believes that the unbroken chain of=20 evolutionary evidence will never be found -- that what we see in = the=20 fossils and in living creatures is more accurately explained = with the=20 creation model. Gould is still an evolutionist, but he = writes:=20

"The birds of = Massachusetts=20 and the bugs in my backyard are unambiguous members of species=20 recognized in the same way by all experienced observers.=20

This notion of = species as=20 "natural kinds"...fit splendidly with creationist = tenets....=20

But how could a = division of=20 the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an = evolutionary=20 theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact = of=20 nature?" ^[1]=20

Dr. Gould is making a statement about what we = see as=20 opposed to what evolution theorizes we ought to be = seeing. We see=20 discrete entities, distinct species. In the fossil record, there = are=20 fish, turtles and cockroaches. They are individually distinct,=20 identifiable creatures. In life, we can also see fish, turtles = and=20 cockroaches. We can identify them. They are not l/2 fish and l/2 = turtle=20 or l/2 turtle and l/2 cockroach. We do not see elephants = evolving fins=20 or whales evolving wings. The discrete entities we see in the = fossil=20 record and in life are not "questionable" species. They are not=20 transitional forms, as evolution would require. This is a = problem for=20 the evolutionist. If evolution is true, creatures should not be = so=20 easily identifiable. Every creature should be difficult to = categorize,=20 classify and name, if evolution is correct (and life is = "evolving=20 along"). Could it be that evolution is not correct? That each = animal is=20 easily identifiable (as giraffe or beetle or fish or turtle or=20 cockroach) truly does "fit splendidly with creationist tenets."=20 Ceaseless change in the fossils or living plants and animals = does not=20 appear to be "...the fundamental fact of nature".^[2]=20 (Emphasis added).

God tells us He created each plant and animal = after its=20 own kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Nothing evolved from = some lower=20 life form and nothing is presently evolving into a higher life = form.=20 From a creationist position, what we see in the fossil record = and in=20 life is exactly what we would expect to see. The lack of = transitional=20 forms is why evolutionists have the "missing link" problem, = although=20 some deny this. The "missing links" are missing. They are = completely absent in the fossil record and in living organisms. = They=20 never will be found. God created each plant and animal after its = own=20 kind, therefore, you would not expect to see "missing = links".

The evolutionist's propaganda machine constantly = barrages=20 us through public TV, magazines and newspapers with broad = ambiguities=20 and undocumented claims supporting evolutionary theory. A letter = in the=20 Dallas Morning News by Drs. Alvin = and Joel=20 Taurog of Southwestern Medical School exemplifies this type of=20 propaganda:

"Biological = evolution=20 asserts that all living organisms are interrelated by unbroken = ties of=20 genealogy. Although referred to as a theory, evolution is as = much a fact=20 as anything discovered by science, as well confirmed as the = rotation of=20 the planets around the sun or the roundness of the earth. The = concept of=20 evolution is central to biology and a massive body of evidence=20 corroborates the evolutionary origin of all living organisms, = including=20 humans. While much remains to be learned regarding the = mechanisms of=20 evolution, the evolution of species is accepted by biologists as = proven=20 fact." ^[3]=20

Let us evaluate this paragraph of Drs. Taurog. = If "...all=20 living organisms are interrelated by unbroken ties of = genealogy", then=20 the leading evolutionary thinker of Harvard, Dr.=20 Stephen Jay Gould, is wrong. Gould states: =

"The absence of = fossil=20 evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in = organic=20 design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to = construct=20 functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent = and=20 nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of = evolution." ^[4]=20

"Gradualistic evolution" means evolution of one = creature=20 into a more sophisticated and more complex creature over long = periods of=20 time. One creature gradually becomes another if given enough = time.=20 Gradualistic evolution, if true, should have evidence of = transitional=20 intermediate life forms in fossils and in living animals. Gould=20 continues:

"All = paleontologists know=20 that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of=20 intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are=20 characteristically abrupt." ^[5]=20

What Gould is saying is that the missing links = remain=20 missing. There are no transitional (in-between) forms. No plant = or=20 animal is evolving into a higher form as far as the fossils can=20 confirm.

Where are these "unbroken = ties"=20 referred to by Drs. Taurog? They present no scientific evidence = to=20 support their view. The evidence is only implied. They do appear = to=20 erect a "straw-man-creationist" and to take a few sideways = swipes at=20 him. In mentioning the "rotation of the planets around the sun = or the=20 roundness of the earth" as true science, are they implying that = the=20 Bible and creationists believe in the "sun rising on a flat = earth"? How=20 accurate are these doctors in the use of language? Do they say = to a=20 patient, "Did you see the beautiful sunrise this = morning?" Or=20 would they be scientifically accurate and ask "Did you see the = beautiful=20 earth turn this morning?" The Bible uses common, ordinary = language. That the earth is not flat, but a sphere is taught in = Isaiah=20 40:22: "It is He that = sitteth=20 upon (above) the circle of the earth..." (KJV). The Bible = teaches=20 that as God looks down upon earth, it appears as a sphere or = circle.=20 Psalm 19 (New American Standard Version) is a scripture that = uses normal=20 language and refers to the sun rising. The Bible is not = inaccurate=20 because it uses common figures of speech.

Where can we find the "massive body of evidence = (that)=20 corroborates the evolutionary origin of all living creatures, = including=20 humans" (as Drs. Taurog allege)? The "massive body of evidence" = proving=20 the evolution of man would not fill a single casket according to = evolutionist and prolific author Dr. Lyall Watson:=20

"The fossils = that decorate=20 our family tree are so scarce that there are still more = scientists than=20 specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence = we have=20 for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, = inside a=20 single coffin!" ^[6]=20

"When religion = and science=20 come into conflict, it is generally in the realm of = belief....Scientific=20 belief is based solely upon evidence that is validated by = observation,=20 experiment and prediction; neither religious belief, nor any = other=20 belief system, is subject to these constraints." ^[7]=20

Apparently, Drs. Taurog believe that the = evolution model=20 of one cell to man is science and thus can be validated with the = scientific method. Creation science is apparently religious = belief in=20 their view. They add, "The interrelationships among living = organisms=20 from microbes to man have never been clearer,..." It is not = clear=20 precisely what these doctors are referring to, but from the = smallest=20 life forms to the largest, from the simplest to the most = complex, there=20 is no scientific evidence to prove that they (small to large or = simple=20 to complex) are related as ancestors to or progeny from each = other.=20 Natural History of May 1977 (p. 14) published the words = of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould:

"The extreme = rarity of=20 transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade = secret of=20 paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks = have data=20 only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is = inference,=20 however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils... We fancy = ourselves as=20 the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our = favored=20 account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so = bad=20 that we never see the very process we profess to=20 study."

Even at the level of molecules, evidence to = support=20 evolution is lacking. In chapter 2, we discussed the fact that = at the=20 cellular level of living creatures there are important = differences that=20 distinguish between basic kinds of flesh. For instance, the = cells that=20 make up the flesh of birds and fish are not the same. Scientists = are=20 studying even smaller entities than cells as they examine the = molecules=20 of the cell. This field of study is named Molecular = Biology.

A book that every Christian family (and = non-Christian, as=20 well) should have is, Of Pandas and People: The Central = Question of=20 Biological Origins. Written by creationists as a = supplemental high=20 school biology textbook supporting the view that life demands a=20 designer, this book deals with the molecular evidence for = creation.=20

"The study of = living things=20 on the molecular level is a relatively new field. The = information that=20 scientists derive from molecular biology may be used to compare = and=20 categorize organisms, a field known as biochemical taxonomy.=20 Biochemical analysis holds out the promise of making taxonomy a = more=20 precise science, because it allows differences between various = organisms=20 to be quantified and measured....

Proponents of = intelligent=20 design read similarity in structure as a reflection of = similarity in=20 function. All living organisms must survive in the same universe = and=20 must fit its ecological web. All must fit into a food chain. The = need to=20 function within a common universe puts common physical and = chemical=20 requirements on all organisms. It would be both logical and = efficient=20 for an intelligent agent to design living things with a common=20 biochemical base....

The significant = new=20 contribution biochemistry offers is a mathematically = quantifiable means=20 of determining how similar classes of organisms are. But when = several=20 similarities are put side by side, the pattern that emerges=20 contradicts all expectations based on = evolution." ^[8]=20 (Emphasis added).

Animals that evolutionists have always believed = to be=20 closely related in the evolutionary chain are now known to be = unrelated=20 when studied at the molecular level. Kenyon and Davis = continue:=20

"To use classic = evolutionary=20 terminology, amphibians are intermediate between fish and the = other=20 land-dwelling vertebrates. Yet, analysis of their amino acids = does not=20 place amphibians in an intermediate position. This is true no = matter=20 what species of amphibian we choose for comparison. Based upon = the=20 evolutionary series, we would expect some amphibians to be = closer to=20 fish ("primitive" species) and others to be closer to reptiles=20 ("advanced" species). But this is not the case. No matter which = species=20 are taken as the basis for comparison, the distance between = amphibians=20 and fish, or between amphibians and reptiles, is always the=20 same....

The revolution = in molecular=20 biology has given us new, mathematically quantifiable data on = the=20 similarities in living things. But the data have served to = support a=20 picture of the organic world consistent with the theory of = intelligent=20 design." ^[9]=20 (Emphasis added).

Author Michael Denton [Evolution: A Theory in = Crisis=20 (Harper and Row, 1986)], a Ph.D. in molecular biology (who is = not a=20 creationist as far as I know), argues that evolution from one = cell to=20 man is not indicated at the level of the molecule. After looking = at=20 molecules for evidence for "missing links" between the different = classes=20 of creatures, Denton writes (p. 286):

"There is a = total absence of=20 partially inclusive or intermediate classes, and therefore none = of the=20 groups traditionally cited by evolutionary biologists as = intermediate=20 gives even the slightest hint of a supposedly transitional=20 character." =

Of course, if there is no evidence for = evolutionary=20 relationships at the level of molecules, which are the basic = building=20 blocks of nature, then the idea of evolution of enzymes, = proteins,=20 plasma and tissue is totally absurd. The Bible says:=20

For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens=20
(He is the God who formed the earth and made = it,=20
He established it and did not create it a waste = place,=20
But formed it to = be=20 inhabited).
I am the Lord, and there is none = else...=20
And there is no other God besides Me,
A = righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except = Me.=20 (Isaiah 45:18,21b)=20

Dr. Vincent Sarich, an = evolutionist and=20 Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, did a = series of=20 studies at the molecular level on the evolution of man. At = first, his=20 studies were scorned by his evolutionary colleagues. He had the = audacity=20 to announce in 1967 that Ramapithecus (proclaimed by Elwyn Simons and David Pilbeam of Yale = to be one=20 of the earliest ancestors of man) was not at all ancestral to = man, but=20 more probably an ancestor to the orangutan. =

"The year was = 1967. Sarich=20 and his partner, Allan Wilson, were comparing blood proteins = from human=20 beings, chimpanzees and gorillas -- finding them remarkably = similar.=20 After analyzing the slight differences, they decided that the = ancestors=20 of human beings must have diverged from those of the African = apes only=20 about 5 million years ago, instead of the 20 million to 30 = million years=20 that fossil evidence seemed to suggest. =

Their conclusion = was=20 regarded by many paleontologists as heresy. It was bad enough = that=20 Sarich and Wilson were challenging the conventional estimate of = the age=20 of the human line. Worse, they were doing it with test tubes and = biochemistry -- all but ignoring the fossils on which so much=20 evolutionary theory was based. Most experts then believed that = human=20 beings could trace their ancestry at least as far back as a 14=20 million-year-old creature called Ramapithecus, and = paleontologist Elwyn=20 Simons, then of Yale, spoke for many of his colleagues when he=20 pronounced the Sarich-Wilson work "impossible to believe."=20

Times have = changed. While=20 Simons still thinks Ramapithecus may be a human ancestor, he has = little=20 company. New fossil discoveries have convinced many experts that = the=20 animal was ancestral to the orangutan." ^[10]=20

Molecular research is eliminating the supposed=20 evolutionary ancestors of people, one by one.

^[1] Stephen = Jay Gould,=20 "A Quahog is a Quahog," Natural=20 History, Vol. 88 (7), August-September, 1979, p.=20 18.

^[2]=20 ibid.

^[3]=20 Drs. Alvin=20 and Joel Taurog, Dallas = Morning=20 News,March 6, 1987, Letters to the = Editor.

^[^4] Stephen = Jay Gould,=20 "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Paleobiology, Vol. 6 = (1),=20 January, 1980, p. 127, as quoted in The Quote Book, p.=20 8.

^[^5] Stephen = Jay Gould,=20 "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol. = LXXVI (6),=20 June-July, 1977, p. 24. Quoted in

The Quote=20 Book, p.=20 8.

^[^6] = Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. = 90, May,=20 1982, p. 44.

^[^7] = Drs. Alvin = and Joel=20 Taurog, Dallas Morning = News,=20 March 6, 1987, Letters to the Editor.

^[^8] Percival = Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People = (Dallas:=20 Haughton Publishing Co., 1989), pp. = 34-36.

^[^9] ibid, pp.=20 37,38.

^[^10] Kevin McKean, "Preaching the Molecular Gospel," Discover, Vol. 4 (7), = July,=20 1983, p. 34.

TOP OF = page

SITE=20 MAP * SEARCH * HOME= =20 * INDEX

FAVORITE LINKS *=20 SPECIAL BOOK OFFERS

E-MAIL- COMMENTS

HARVESTIME BOOKS

PO. BOX 300

ALTAMONT TN. = 37301