Missing Links or Fossil Phonies?

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

281416903.jpgAuthor, writer, and paleontologist Luther Sunderland was struck with the same problem that has haunted the theory of evolution from the very beginning; even back to Charles Darwin‘s day. The claim that one piece of an enormous jigsaw puzzle represents a 500 piece set which happens not only to be missing, but one is which no other piece has been found. The archeological record shows that there is a complete lack of transitional fossils for at least one single set of species. With an estimated 300 million species on earth and another estimated 100 million fossils in private and public collections, no one has yet found a single set of transitional fossils. This lack of conclusive fossil evidence pertains not only for animals, but mammals, the plethora of organic organisms, and all plant life. If, as evolution claims, that plants evolved too, why do most of the earth’s floral and fauna appear instantaneously in the Cambrian explosion: And already found to be fully in their flowering and seed stages?

If evolutionists, scientists, archeologists, paleontologists or anthropologists can not find and fill in the missing gaps in the fossil records, they turn to abstract reasoning. This in turn moves to analytical thinking, then to the hypothetical stage, culminating into a theory. These theories, in general, depend upon other theories to be true. Theories have inherent problems; that of being highly subjective meaning they are subject to error. Laws on the other hand are objective, like the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. These are ground in objective, observable, measurable ways. Laws are not dependent upon theories; indeed they can invalidate theories. The chief concern for evolution is that there remains no transitional fossil evidence to support it. There is nothing tangible, only theoretical assumptions. Anyone is yet to find a single set of transitional fossils, or even two or three fossils in transition.

The technology is available today, underground imaging, along with human and natural activities; excavations for construction, mining, flooding washouts and so on. We can now dig deep into the earth, but it is what we haven’t found that is the conundrum for evolution. It is the same thing that Darwin was deeply trouble with, which was a lack of any kind of transitional fossil evidence. [1]

In Charles Darwin’s day, Paleontology was in it’s infancy as a scientific discipline. But now, after one-hundred-and-fifty years of looking, we still lack what is required for this theory to be true: Sufficient evidence of transitional fossil records. David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum stated that, “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Dr. Kitts admits that “…evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…” [2]

When Mr. Sunderland asked to see the transition fossils from the world‘s greatest natural museums, they became a bit defensive. In fact, they were sometimes belligerent. Mr. Sunderland started his search with interviews with the five most respected museum officials in the world. Each are recognized authorities in their individual fields of study. These included representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. The fact is that not one of the five officials was able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one kind of animal or plant into another. [3]

Aren’t these greatest of the world’s natural fossil museums where you would expect them to be located? With all the placards about evolution and fossilization in the museums, they must have some on display, right? It’s natural to assume that any transitional fossils would on public display and at the world’s most prestigious museums.

Mr. Sunderland’s first stopped at what is called the King of Fossils! The King of Fossils happens to be The British Museum of Natural History. This museum holds the largest collection of fossils in the world. Mr. Sunderland managed to interview the five most respected museum officials, perhaps in the world. The first and foremost is considered to be Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Dr. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. Even so, he was unable to show even one, single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition in the entire museum.

Mr. Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History called “Evolution 2“. After examining the book, Mr. Sunderland wondered why there was not even a single photograph of a transitional fossil in it. Mr. Patterson flatly said: “…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. This is despite the fact that no gradualisms have ever been found in the archeological record.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) at the American Museum of Natural History, one of the most influential paleontologists and evolutionary biologists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries was, like Mr. Sunderland, deeply troubles with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” [3]

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues: “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than forty years have completely failed. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” [4]

In 2009, a new “missing link” was announced in New York City amid much hoopla. It was dubbed Ida. But it has apparently been altered and even partially fabricated. In the first place, this is not a new discovery at all. Ida has actually been in human hands for over twenty-five years. It most certainly comes with great controversy. The Norwegian paleontologist Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum said at the 2009 New York Press conference, that it’s not really an anthropoid, but he but still refers Ida as coming from the period that’s called the Old World Monkeys. About the time that it is thought that humans split off from the gorillas and chimpanzees.

Ida has been the most recent claim as the new “missing link”. A claim was made that was hailed as “changing everything”. The History Channel produced a show in 2009 that boasted about Ida as “The Link: This Changes Everything“. But what has really changed? Nothing, Ida has been tampered with by humans. And precious little is said about the fact that this fossil’s been around for since 1983, so it is no new missing link. It’s been held privately since that time and the fossil has been cut in half. The collector eventually sold both parts and from separate plates to different parties. But there are more issues. One of the parts was restored and “partly fabricated” so that it would look “more complete” (5). Scientists wanted to know what was used to “fabricate” it and what was used in the process of it being restored? And, what substances have been added to it for displaying purposes?

Robert Bazell, [The Daily Nightly MSNBC.com 5/19/09] Chief Science Correspondent, quoted the renowned paleontologist Tim White [University of California, Berkeley]. Dr. White said it will take years to determine if this is the “Mother of all Monkeys”. [5] But if you take a look at the link you’ll find that they don’t really know yet. [6] The report says that it will take years of scientific examination before any judgment can be made. But on the scientific report, no claim is made that it is a missing link or a fossil that is revolutionary in stature. Nor are there any sensational claims, like at Ida’s press conference, that this fossil changes everything!

Read for yourself the report on the link below. Jenz L. Franzen, one of the scientists in the study, showed that some of the specimen is real, while substantial parts were faked to give an illusion of greater completeness. The report clearly says that “…parts of plate B were faked, including notably, hands and feet (where some proportions of constructions may have been based on reversed photos of A) and the tail vertebral column. Traces on the surrounding polyester resin background suggest that a cast of the tail of another mammal was inserted into plate B. Additional parts such as the vertebrae between sections 1 and 2 as well the nasal part of the skull on plate B were simply fabricated”. [6] It would be more accurate to say that, “these changes changed everything for the fossil”.

Remember that these claims have been made many times and been exposed as frauds. Dozens of the so-called “missing links” have turned out to be absolute fakes. One example was discovered in 1922 that changed the nation’s public school system forever. A so-called scientist claimed to have found the true “missing link” between men and animals in Nebraska. Dubbed the “Nebraska Man,” it was flaunted in text-books and museums of the world as being one million years old. Pictures and models were created, based on the “scientific” studies of experts. Just three years later, in the famous “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, this overwhelming evidence was introduced to prove evolution and show that “ignorant Bible-believers” were wrong! Great “scientific experts” were quoted to prove their case and all who were dumb enough to believe that God created man in His image were mocked and ridiculed! This is the same “evidence” that was used in the Scopes Monkey Trial, trying to force evolution as a fact of science in the public schools. Once again, faulty assumptions can lean to faulty conclusions. And this faulty one had enormous implications.

When evidence of the “Nebraska Man” was demanded, the “great scientific experts” reluctantly admitted that their evidence consisted of ONE (1) tooth! But that’s not all! After evolutionists and the mainstream media reporters bullied lowly Bible believers for years with their “scientific proof” the rest of that skeleton was found, and guess what? It was the skeleton of an extinct pig! There are several others.

Darwin expressed doubts and problematic areas throughout his book “On the Origin of the Species”. In the sixth chapter, Difficulties on Theory, he writes, “Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.” [1] In his chapter on instinct he conceded such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. And to think he said that “The eye could evolve by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” In his chapter on imperfections in the geological record he complained that the complete lack of fossil intermediates in all geological records was perhaps, quote, “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” [1] In other words, he was at least honest enough to admit that the thing didn’t make any sense.

Given no real evidence, some have turned so far as to falsify fossils and create fossil hoaxes with the claim that a major missing link was found. The Britannica Encyclopedia says that the Piltdown man was a fraud! An analysis was made to date the bones more precisely and it was discovered that the skull was human and the jaw was that of a monkey with the teeth filed in to make them look human. Both creatures had recently died, but the bones had been chemically treated to make them look old! And tests revealed that the bones were not from the same animal. Shockingly, from 1912 until 1953; that’s over forty years, all the “expert, highly educated, brilliant,” evolutionists of the world who studied these bones were completely fooled. Over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown man which was a fraud, but they were still awarded Ph.D. degrees from outstanding universities of the world!

Must we believe that from 1912 until 1953, over forty years, all the “expert, highly educated, brilliant,” evolutionists of the world who studied these bones were fooled by a practical joke? Are we expected to give up our faith in God’s eternal and infallible Word and trust such men who call themselves “scientists,” and yet cannot tell the difference between scientific facts and fakery? Over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown man and were awarded Ph.D. degrees from outstanding universities of the world. But aren’t these really Doctorates of Fakery?

In 1974 Donald Johannson discovered a set of fossils that were stated to be 40% complete in Ethiopia. At first it was considered to be a female that stood less than three and a half feet tall. Her skull was not found, but a portion of the lower jaw was, or so they thought. It was an exact copy of a full ape-like one. What is never mentioned is the fact that other fossils from the same strata and location have been found, and these have all been fully ape, with the cranial capacity in the range of a modern chimp of today. Johannson’s claim that Lucy was “the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race” was overrated. He claimed she was three million years old and diagrammed at the very “Y” of the phylum branch that separated man and ape.

The media made an immediate celebrity of Johannson and hailed him as a hero. He even got his own institute for human biology at Berkeley (Cal.) University. The find was dubbed the infamous “Lucy“. But something wasn’t quite right. Why were scientists not allowed to examine it, or even touch it, until 1982? Could the delay have been due to the fact that biologists could find no distinguishable differences between Lucy and the present-day rainforest Chimpanzee you might see at the Zoo. Little attention is given to the fact that Lucy is only three and a half feet tall. Now that’s one short woman! Detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that Lucy and her like were not on their way to becoming human. Where she was found is just as important. Lucy was located in the same area where the. Australopithecus afarensis once thrived. There were literally hundreds of bones that were found of the Australopithecus afarensis, which is similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Back in 1891, a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, stationed in Java, reported finding one of the first “missing links” between man and animals! What he discovered was the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. However, these were found more than 70 feet apart, and these were only three of what were hundreds of bones along a creek bank. And Dr. Dubois took over a year of searching and kept only three! It wasn’t until after completing his military service that Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home. He sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his “scientific” proof. Perhaps he never followed up with that request because he had doubts about their authenticity, since he was the only one who had ever examined them.

Java Ape-Man or “Pithecanthropus erectus” is translated, “the ape-man that walks upright“, but was he an actual ape-man? Biologists and evolutionists accepted his statement in faith, as “proof positive“. Without question, they rather arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! But it was only then that many of the leading scientists eagerly went to “Dr.” Dubois’s Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones. Dubois turned them away at his door.

The story ends after about thirty-five years, when the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists eventually did meet to study the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a “missing link!” Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the “missing link” between man and animals, proving evolution!

Since there are far too many fossils labeled “missing links” to cover in one book, and these fossils contain inerrant problems, here are a couple of more examples fossil phonies.

Ramapithecus: This once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Homo habilis: There is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types – such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such.

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist? Regardless, discussing a newly discovered “missing link” seems ridiculous when there is no chain to begin with. One link does not make a chain.

1. http://www.literature.org, Charles Darwin, Origins of Species, Chapters 6 & 9, Difficulties on Theory and On the Imperfection of the Geological Records. Darwin’s quotes located on e-book at http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ chapter-06.html, http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the- origin-of-species/chapter-09.html

2. David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. Genuine Knowledge, D.B. Kitts, 2006, University of Oklahoma. (Evolution, vol. 28, p. 467).

3. Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, 1988, 88-90.

4. N. Heribert Nilsson, botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden. as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20, 1994. Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications. (p. 51).

5. http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/19/1937065.aspx

6. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone0005723


About Author

Leave A Reply