Evolutionary ShowCase


“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do.

“To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” —*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution, ” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

“When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk.” —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 77.

“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” —*Ambrose Flemming, President British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.” —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

“Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else.” —*G. K. Chesterton (1925).

Throughout this set of books we have been surprised at the paucity of evidence that evolutionary theory has to offer. We begin to wonder just how evolutionists are able to maintain such a lock grip on the modern world.

In later chapters we will learn that their secret of success is actually their control of hiring and firing in the scientific world, the colleges and universities, research centers, scientific organizations, as well as their connections with the public media and the major book publishing houses. No large book company would dare print the book you are now reading. It is the fear of reprisal that keeps evolutionary theory at the top.

But, to the public, evolution presents its showcase, assured that they will be ignorant enough of natural history and scientific discoveries to gullibly absorb enough of it to keep them puzzled and tractable.

Let us for a moment consider two of the best evolutionary pieces in this showcase—”proofs” of evolution which we have mentioned elsewhere in this set of books.

In all the other “evidences of evolution” which we have examined in this set of books, we have found not one indication of any transition across species.

But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record there are TWO times when one species evolved into another. These are considered very important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall now discuss each one in some detail:


30 DIFFERENT HORSES—In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were then put on display at Yale University. Copies of this “horse series” are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.

Hyracotherium, placed at the beginning of the so-called horse series, was originally identified by Richard Owen, an anti-Darwinist. But later paleontologists sought to conform this creature to evolution.

“Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.” —*World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

“The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things.” —Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FIFTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—In more closely analyzing the horse series, we come upon 15 distinct problems which negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. Reading through them, we realize that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large—and then called it all “a horse series. “

1- Different animals in each series. In that exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray “early horses”).

Huxley, known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” was the first theoretician of the imaginary horse series.

2 – Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

3- Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs, the next creature has 19, there is a jump to 15, and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modem horse.

4 – No transitional teeth. The teeth of the “horse” animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types.

Once, There was the “Horse Series” Scenario

When Darwin was proposing his theory, there were no intermediate forms to support it, but he hoped that some would be discovered in the future. To remedy this vital deficiency, paleontologists who believed in Darwinism put together a set of horse fossils found in North America to form a sequence. Despite the fact that there appeared to be no intermediate forms in the fossil record, the Darwinists thought that they had come up with a great success.

One of the most important pieces of this sequence had already been discovered before Darwinism. In 1841, the English paleontologist Sir Richard Owen found a fossil belonging to a small mammal and, inspired by its similarity to the hyrax, a small fox-like creature found in Africa, he called it Hyracotherium. The hyrax’s skeleton was almost identical to Owen’s finding, except for its skull and the tail.

As they did with other fossils, paleontologists who adopted Darwinism began to evaluate Hyracotherium from an evolutionist point of view. In 1874, the Russian paleontologist Vladimir Kovalevsky tried to establish a relationship between Hyracotherium and horses. In 1879, two well-known evolutionists of the time carried this enterprise further and compiled the horse series which was to remain on the Darwinist agenda for years to come. The American paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh, together with Thomas Huxley (known as Darwin’s bulldog), devised a chart by arranging some hoofed fossils according to tooth structure and the number of toes in foreleg and hind leg. In the process, to stress the idea of evolution, Owen’s Hyracotherium was renamed eohippus which means “dawn horse.” Their claims together with their charts were published in the American Journal of Science and laid the foundation of the sequence that would be displayed for years in museums and textbooks as supposed proof of the evolution of today’s horse.122 Some of the genera displayed as the stages of this sequence included Eohippus, Orohippus, Miohippus, Hipparion and finally the modern-day horse, Equus.

In the next century, this sequence was taken to be proof for the so-called evolution of the horse. The decrease in the number of toes and the animal’s gradual increase in size were enough to convince evolutionists, who for some decades hoped to assemble similar fossil sequences for other creatures. But their hopes were never fulfilled: They were never able to assemble a sequence for other creatures, as they supposedly had for the horse.

Moreover, some contradictions became evident, with the attempt to insert newly-excavated fossils into the horse series. Characteristics of the new finds-where they were discovered, their age, the number of toes-were incompatible with the sequence and began to undo it. They were inconsistent with the horse series and turned it into a meaningless assortment of fossils.

The horse series charts looked most convincing at first glance, but were actually the result of distortions of the facts. Every new fossil discovery has revealed the invalidity of these imaginary charts.

5 – Not from in-order strata. The “horse” creatures do not come from the “proper” lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest “horse” is found in the highest strata.)

6 – Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called “Eohippus” (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern Hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts which cling to their “Eohippus” theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse

“The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail.” —H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194195.

Like the others, this horse series in a museum consists of a haphazard sequential arrangement of living things, that lived at different times and in different places, evaluated from a one-sided perspective. The scenario of horse evolution has no foundations in the fossil record.

7 – No two bone exhibits alike. There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!


Here is that impressive horse leg and foot series which makes such an impression on visitors to the many museums where replicas of it are on display. But the 15 evidences contradicting that claim are not mentioned by the museums.

8 – Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.

9 – Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these “horses.” As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

10 – Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensis and Equus accidentalis.

11- Gaps below as well as above. Eohippus, the earliest of these “horses,” is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

12 – Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed (“more recent”) is even found below the three-toed (“more ancient”) creature.

13 – Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

14 – Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size, and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

15 – Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

1) A mountain pony raised on the western Scottish islands 2) A Shetland pony, the smallest British horse breed 3) A Percheron horse from Normandy 4) A breed of the Ardennais living in Eastern France 5)A Breton horse raised in Western Brittany 6) A Timor pony of Australian origin 7) A wild Asian horse of Mongolian origin Horses alive today vary widely in terms of structure and size. Evolutionists who devised the horse series erred in seeking to depict the fossils of different extinct species in a supposed evolutionary sequence.


Eohippus is supposed to have been the earliest “horse,” but scientists have found it quite alive in Africa. This rodentlike animal has nothing to do with the ancestry of the horse. Shown below is this shy, fox-sized creature called the daman.

A STUDY IN CONFUSION—In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental, and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:

“The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line.” —*Encyclopedia Britannica (1976 ad.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Scientists protest such foolishness:

“The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T. S. Wescott, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong.” —*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

“There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses.. As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely dear, an exhibit of horses as an example. . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks.” —*Garrett Hardin, Nature anal Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

FEAR TO SPEAK—Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series “was the best available example of a transitional sequence.” We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake.

“Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’

“When scientists speak in their offices or behind dosed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

“. . [On February 14,1981] In California he was on a network television program. The host asked liven to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence.” —L. D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS A “LIVING FOSSIL” —*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

“Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush.” —*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

“In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse.” —*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

“The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse.” —*Charles Deperef, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105. [French paleontologist.]

“In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ ” —*G.A. KerlaA, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. the record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

“By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated.” —*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

“It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family.” —*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—A leading 20th century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

“The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” —*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, Simpson said this:

“Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations.” —*George G. Simpson, “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals” in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

“This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.” —*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

OTHER SERIES—In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well known or publicized.

These are the Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series, the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foramlnifera Series, and the Bivalve Series.

When one views the charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each—gives the impression that they are all “horse-like.” All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.

Then we turn to the Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil imprints or bones.

The Ceratopsian Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the head, while two of them have horns in different locations.

The last two, the Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply variously-shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general appearance.

On one hand, it appears that some of these series are simply different animals with similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply dogs.


ARCHAEOPTERYX—This is a big name for a little bird, and is pronounced “Archee-0P-ter-iks.” It means “early wing.” If you have a hard time with it, just call the little fellow “Archee.” He won’t mind.

There are high-quality limestone deposits in Solnhofen, Germany (near Eichstatt), which have been mined for over a century. From time to time, fossils have been found in them, and the sale of these has provided extra income for the owners of the Dorr quarry.

Here is that famous fossil imprint from the Jurassic Solnhofen limestone in Germany. Many scientists now consider it to be nothing more than a genuine bird; others consider it to be a carefully contrived fake. There is evidence supporting both positions.

In 1861, a feather was found and it sold for a surprisingly good price. This was due to the fact that it had purportedly come from late Jurassic strata. Soon after, in the same quarry, a fossil bird was found with the head and neck missing. The name Archaeopteryx had been given to the feather and so the same name was given to the bird. The Jurassic specimen was sold for a high price to the British Museum. Finding unusual specimens was becoming an excellent way to bring in good profit. In 1877, a second specimen was said to have been discovered close to the first,—but this one had a neck and head. In that head were 13 teeth in each jaw; the head itself had the elongated rounded shape of a lizard head. This latest find made an absolute sensation, and was sure to sell for a great amount of money. And it surely did—going this time to the Humboldt Museum in Berlin as the highest bidder.

Including that feather, there are six specimens of Archaeopteryx in the world. All six came from that same German limestone area. In addition to the feather and the first two, three others are quite faint and difficult to use. It is almost impossible to tell what they are. Aside from the feather, the others are located at London, Berlin, Maxburg, Teyler, and Eichstatt—all in Germany. They all came from the same general area.

Only the first fossilized skeleton (the “London specimen”) and the second one (the “Berlin specimen” are well-enough defined to be usable. Evolutionists declare them to be prime examples of a transitio nal species. If so, we would have here the only definite cross-species transitions ever found anywhere in the world.

“Evolutionists can produce only a single creature—one single fossil creature—for which it is possible to produce even a semblance of an argument. That creature is, of course, Archaeopteryx, of which about five fossil specimens have been found in Upper Jurassic rocks (assumed by evolutionary geologists to be about 150 million years in age). All have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany).” —Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 110.

The evolutionists consider Archaeopteryx to be a transition between reptile and bird. But there are two other possibilities. Some favor the first, others (including the present writer) prefer the second. Here are both; take your pick:


If the Archaeopteryx specimens are genuine, here are several reasons why Archaeopteryx can be considered to be a bird, and not a reptile:

1- Scientists say it is a bird. It is significant that a special scientific meeting was held in 1982, a year before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that Archaeopteryx was a hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting, it was decided that Archaeopteryx is a “bird” and not a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.

Therefore, the scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a transitional species, but only a bird.

2 – How could scales turn into feathers? Although zealous evolutionists have always claimed that this creature is a descendant of the reptiles and the ancestor of the birds, yet they do not explain how the scales on a reptile can change into feathers.

3 – Bones like a bird. Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a bird has.

4 – Not earlier than birds. Archaeopteryx does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period (the Jurassic) in which Archaeopteryx was found.

5 – It has modern bird feathers. The feathers on Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers.

“But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us.” —*A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.

6 – No intermediate feathers ever found. Transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none have ever been found.

7 – Well-developed wings. The wings of Archaeopteryx were well developed, and the bird probably could fly well.

8 – Wings designed for flight. The feathers Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the shaft does not have the same amount of feather on both sides. This is the way feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as chickens) have fairly symmetrical feathers.

“The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; nonflying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings.” —*E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, “Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx,” Nature (1979), p. 248.

9 – No prior transitions. There ought to be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this is not the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and bird, for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it to the reptile. It has fully-developed bird wing-bones and flight feathers.

10 – Bird-like in most respects. Archaeopteryx gives evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it differs in certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits on its wings, and (3) a reptile-like head, but there are explanations for all three points.

[a] – Lack of a sternum. Archaeopteryx had no sternum, but although the wings of some birds today attach to the sternum, others attach to the furcula (wishbone). Archaeopteryx had a large furcula, so this would be no problem.

“It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula.” —Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

[b] – Digits on its wings: Archaeopteryx had three digits on its “wings.” Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. This includes the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternum—such as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.

[c] – The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says it is shaped more like a bird.

“It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that ‘Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird.’ ” —Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-3.

“Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: ‘A vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death-knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form.” —Marvin Lubenow, “Report on the Racine Debate, ” in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

11 – Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: how could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

“So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains.” —*F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p.. 160.

12 – Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds which also had them.

“However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.).” —*P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), p. 196-197.

13 – Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.

The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck; has fur but lays eggs; in spite of is egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk; chews its food with plates instead of with teeth; the male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole, but like a duck it has webs between its toes; it uses sonar underwater.

There is no doubt but that the platypus is far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, yet, like the Archaeopteryx, there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.

14 – Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist said this:

“This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of is presumed theoodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before.” —*A.S Romer, Notes end Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the sues through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” —*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), P. 1.

Other scientists agree. Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:

“It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.” —*J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

“Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Araliaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stapes have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.” —*L du Nay, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

15 – Modern birds in same strata. Bones of modern birds have been found in the same type of rock strata—the Jurassic—in which archaeopteryx was found. (They have been found in eastern Colorado.) According to evolutionary theory, this cannot be, for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx to change into a regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as modern birds, how can it be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also been found in the Jurassic limestone beds of Utah.

16 – Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we also find them below it!

“Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils.” —Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46.

No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic, but within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx) More information on this Texas discovery can be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.


Now we come to a totally opposite position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned hoax. At the same time that mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully-contrived fake, confirmed evolutionists are moving toward the position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird, and not a half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a “bird,” they avoid the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.

THREE INITIAL PROBLEMS—Before considering the *Hoyle/*Watkins expose, let us first look at some other facets of this overall problem.

You will observe in the following discussion that there are some observational differences between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil—and carefully added wings to it!

“Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form. . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding.” —W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), p. 58-60.

1- A profitable business. There are those who believe that Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would have been be relatively easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone would make it easy to carefully engrave something on it. Since the first Archaeopteryx sold for such an exorbitant price to the highest bidder (the British Museum), the second produced 16 years later, had a reptile-like head—and sold for a tremendous amount to the museum in Berlin. The owner of that quarry made a small fortune on the sale of each of those two specimens.

2 – Feathers added to a fossil? In these specimens we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a photograph of the “London specimen,” you will note that the flight feathers consist only of carefully-drawn lines!

It would be relatively easy for someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and carefully scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable limestone. All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a bird as a pattern to copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its wing pattern onto the reptile specimen. That is all that would be required, and the result would be a fabulous amount of income. And both specimens did produce just that!


3 – All specimens came from the same place. Keep in mind that all six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia, Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere else—anywhere in the world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever been discovered!

Living in Germany, at the same time that these six specimens were found, was *Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He would have been in the prime of life at the time those specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was the most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent, and it is well known that he was very active at the time the finds were made, and was continually seeking for new “proofs” of evolution so he could use them in his lecture circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual illustrations, and it is now known that he spent time on the side enthusiastically inventing them!

It is also known that Haeckel had unusual artistic ability and he put it to work fraudulently touching up and redrawing charts of ape skeletons and embryos so that they would appear to prove evolutionary theory. He had both the ability and the mind set for the task. You will find more information on his fraudulent artistry in chapter 22, Recapitulations. There is no doubt that Haeckel had the daring, the skill, the time, and the energy to forge those Archaeopteryx specimens. In those years, he always seemed to have the money to set aside time for anything he wanted to do in the way of lecturing or drawing charts. He even supported a mistress for a number of years. Perhaps some of that money came from engraving bird feathers onto reptile fossils, and then splitting the profits of Archaeopteryx sales with the quarry owners.

About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best 19th century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography. Both were\used in the 19th century in printing and both were able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. (“Lithos” and “graphos” means “stone writing.”) Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the Intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil.

“The feathers of Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider, at the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to base evolutionary theories on!” —W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), p. 81.

THE *HOYLE/*WATSON EXPOSE—It was not until the 1980s that the most formidable opposition to these Solnhofen limestone specimens developed. Here is the story of what took place:

1- Background of the Investigations. In 1983, * M. Trop, wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the specimen. (“Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 121-122.) Two years later, a series of four articles appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues) declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully-contrived hoax.

These articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England: *Fred Hoyle, *R.S. Watkins, *N.C. Wickramasinghe, *J. Watkins, * R. Rabilizirov, and *L.M. Spetner, and this brought the controversy to the attention of the scientific world.

Keep in mind as we discuss these specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So all the evidence pro and con must come from one or the other of those two specimens.

This crisis over the specimens began in 1983 when six leading British scientists, led by *Fred Hoyle and *R.S. Watkins, declared in print that Archaeopteryx was a definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been a hoax. These researchers went to the London Museum and carefully studied and photographed the specimen. That specimen is contained in a slab and a counterslab—thus giving a front and back view of it. Here is what these well-known scientists discovered:

2 – Slab mismatch. The two slabs do not appear to match. If the specimen was genuine, the front and back slabs should be mirror images of one another.

A comparison of the present specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration was later made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left wing was totally mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration brought the match closer together.

3 – Artificial feathers. *Hoyle, *Watkins, and the others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but that the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) were carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.

4 – Cement blobs. They also found additional evidence of the forgery: cement blobs used during the etching process:

“They suggested the following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2) they then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as ‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one ‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of others were left behind.” —*Venus E. Clausen, “Recent Debate over Archaeopteryx”

5 – Museum withdraws specimen. After their initial examination of the London specimen, they requested permission for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob areas, utilizing electron microscope, carbon 14 dating and spectrophotometry. Three months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen was being withdrawn from further examination.

6 – History of forgeries. *Hoyle, *Watkins, and the others then checked into historical sources, and declared that they had discovered that, dating back to the early 18th century, the Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil forgeries. Genuine fossils, taken from the limestone quarries, had been altered and then sold to museums. These fossils brought good money because they appeared to be strange new species.

7 – Discoveries follow prediction.  *Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin’s British champion, whom he called his “bulldog,” had predicted that fossils of strange new species would be found. *Hoyle, et. al, believe that, thus encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.

8 – The Meyer connection. Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious feather impressions. These three specimens were sent to *Hermann von Meyer in Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. *Hoyle and company suggest that they came in as reptiles and left with wings! It just so happens that Meyer worked closely with the *Haberlein family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile fossils—and then sold them to the museums. It was the *Haberlein family that made the profit—not the quarry owners. It would be relatively easy for them to split some of it with Meyer.

You can find all of the above material in four issues of the *British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). Also see *W.J. Broad, “Authenticity of Bird Fossil Is Challenged” in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1, C14; *T. Nield, “Feathers Fly Over Fossil `Fraud’ ” in New Scientist 1467:49-50; *G. Vines, “Strange Case of Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud”‘ in New Scientist 1447:3.

9 – Aftermath. As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position.

This brought still further uproar. It had been the same British Museum which had been duped into the Piltdown Man hoax (“found” from 1908 to 1912 only a few miles from Darwin’s old home, publicly announced that same year, and shown to be a hoax in 1953).

For a time, the British Museum refused to relent, but the pressure was too great, so the museum arranged for a special committee, composed of a select variety of scientists, to review the matter. They examined the slabs, and in 1986 reported that, in their opinion, Archaeopteryx had no blobs. With this, the British Museum announced that the case was closed and the slabs will be unavailable for further examination.

Is Archaeopteryx a flying reptile, just another a bird, or a fraud—a reptile with wings added?

Take your pick; either way it is definitely not a transitional species, and has no transitions leading to or from it.


In addition to the horse series and Archaeopteryx, there are several other special “proofs” in favor of evolution, which we have discussed in some detail elsewhere. These include:

1 – The peppered moth (“industrial melanism”) is discussed in detail in chapter Natural Selection,

2 – Darwin’s Finches are discussed in chapter  Natural Selection.

3 – Trilobites are discussed in chapter  Fossils.

4 – Mutated bacteria and sickle-cell anemia are discussed in chapter Mutations.

5 – Radio-dating and radiocarbon dating are discussed in chapter Dating Methods.

6 – The dates attributed to the rock strata are discussed in chapter Fossils.

7 – The existence of dinosaurs in the past is discussed in chapter Fossils.

8 – The existence of cave men and the discovery of “hominid bones” is discussed in chapter  Ancient Man.

9 – Subspecies changes (“microevolution”) is discussed in chapter Natural Selection.

10 – Changes in genes by mutations is discussed in chapter Fossils.

11 – Similarities of body parts and chemistry are discussed in chapter Similarities.

12 – “Useless organs” is discussed in chapter  Vestiges and Recapitulations.

13 – Embryonic similarities are discussed in chapter Vestiges and Recapitulations.

14 – The concept that evolutionary theory is not under natural laws which would invalidate it is discussed in chapter Laws of Nature.

15 – Sea-floor spreading, continental drift, plate tectonics, and magnetic core changes are discussed in chapter Paleomagnetism.

16 – Geographic distribution of plants and animals is discussed in chapter Geographic Distribution.

17 – The “overwhelming support” given by scientists to evolutionary theory is discussed throughout this book, but especially in chapters History of Evolutionary Theory, and Scientists Speak.

18 – The belief that only evolution should be taught in schools is discussed in chapter  Evolution and Education.


19 – The concept that evolution is nonrefutable and outside the realm of falsification and denial is discussed in chapter  Philosophy of Evolution.

20 – The idea that evolution is any kind of help to humanity or society in general is discussed in chapter Evolution and Society.

In addition, other “evidences” and “proofs” of evolution are discussed elsewhere in this set of books. The only evolutionary evidences we have not discussed are some which are of such minuscule importance, that it is difficult for most people to even grasp what is being discussed. Such evolutionary arguments do exist!

Keep in mind that there are definite scientific facts which totally refute the evolution of matter, stars, planetoids, plants, or animals. These powerful refutations stand as a strong rock in the midst of angry waves beating upon them. Learn the most powerful of these proofs and tell them to others! Keep in mind the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: “There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead.” The judge replied, “That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest.”

THREE SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST STELLAR ORIGINS—Three of these powerful proofs in regard to the origin of matters, stars, planets, or moons would be: (1) The impossibility of nothing making itself into something (chapter 1). (2) The impossibility of gaseous matter (hydrogen gas clouds) sticking together and forming itself by gravity or otherwise into stars or planetoids (chapters 1-3). (3) The impossibility of random actions of any kind in producing the intricate, interrelated, and complicated orbits of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters (chapters 1-3).

—Two of the most powerful proofs in regard to the origin of life would be these: (1) The impossibility of random formation of the DNA molecule, amino acids, proteins, or the cell (chapters 10-11). (2) The impossibility of non-life producing life (chapter 9).

SEVEN SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE—Seven of the most powerful proofs in regard to the evolution of life would be these: (1) The total lack of past evidence of trans-species changes, as shown in the fossil evidence (chapter 17). (2) The total lack of present evidence of change from one species to another (chapters 13-15). (3) The impossibility of random, accidental gene reshuffling (“natural selection”) to produce new species (chapter 13). (4) The impossibility of mutations, either singly or in clusters, to produce new species (chapter 14). (5) The fact that there is no other mechanism, other than natural selection or mutations, which could possibly produce trans-species changes (chapters 13-14). (6) The fact that changes within species, are not evolution (chapter 15). (7) The beauty shown in the things of nature. An example of this would be the beauty of the flowers. Random changes would not produce such attractive forms and colors. (8) The marvelous purposive designs of the things of nature (chapters 4, 8, 12-13, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40).

TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST ALL TYPES OF EVOLUTION—The two most powerful proofs negating both inorganic and organic evolution, either in origin or development, would be the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics (chapter 25).

We have elsewhere discussed in detail all of the above proofs of Creation.


The textbooks generally have a trite one-two-three set of evolutionary “evidences, ” which generally consist of the fact that there once were dinosaurs and cave men, and scientific facts and discoveries include “ape man” bones, fossils and strata dates, mutations, similarities, vestiges, and recapitulation.

In this section the present writer has taken a single wide-ranging book of evolutionary evidences, isolated the various “evidences” for evolution given in it, and briefly summarized them below.

The book is Evolution, by *F.H.T. Rhodes (1974). Looking through these “evidences,” we find that 3/4s of them consist of neutral biological, geological, or chemical facts (which provide no actual evidence in favor of evolution), plus a variety of suggestive possibilities. As a rule, the strongest “evidences” for the theory center around variations within species.

Here is a brief view of the well-presented material in the *Rhodes book. You will notice chat none of the following constitutes any real evidence in favor of evolution:

Many different species exist. Aristotle taught evolution. Spontaneous generation could not be a cause of the origin of life. Ray and Linnaeus’ developed plant and animal classification systems. Lamarck’s theory of inheritable changes was an error. History of evolutionary thought for past 200 years. Darwin’s finding of various creatures on the Galapagos islands. Wallace and Malthus’ search for a mechanism whereby evolution could occur, and Darwin’s idea of “natural selection.” Darwin’s influential book.

Darwin’s theory revised by later discovery of mutations. Mendel’s law of genetics. De Vries discovers mutations, and Morgan and Sutton study fruit flies. Surely, mutations must be the cause of all evolutionary change. General information on chromosomes. Variations in fruit flies.

Species always appear to reproduce their own kind. Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a proof of evolution. All living things have cells, protoplasm, metabolism, reproduction, and growth, therefore they must all have come from a common source. All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution.

Different birds have similarities, therefore they must have a common ancestor. Embryos are alike, so they must have evolved from a common source. Organic degeneration and “useless organs” (vestiges) are strong evidences of evolution. Biochemical similarities indicate common ancestry. Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved this ability. Geographic distribution indicates evolution. Men can selectively breed new types of dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species.

Evolution must be implied in the fact that although some birds breed in northern climates, others breed in warmer areas (Population evolution). Drugs given to bacteria have caused mutations which damaged them. Peppered moths come in two types, dark and light, and birds like to eat them. There are different species of extinct fossils. There may be a “fossil series” [like the horse series] among ceratopsian dinosaurs. The horse series. Archaeopteryx. The platypus. The “earliest” organisms in the sedimentary rock strata were smaller and slower, and the later ones were faster and larger. A larger number of species are found in the later strata than in the earlier strata.

Facts about the genes, chromosomes, cell division, Mendelian inheritance patterns, and laws of inheritance. Probabilities of accomplishing changes within species (via Mendelian genetics). Coin tossing. XC and XY mechanisms in reproduction. Genes control reproduction. DNA is the key to inheritance. Protein manufacture. Population genetics: variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.). Gene reshuffling through recombination and crossing-over to produce changes within species.

Mutations produce new characteristics. Genetic drift and geographic isolation also produces changes within species. Migration of populations into new areas may cause evolution also. Evolution can occur through natural selection (mating preferences, predatory killing, etc.). Owls eat the white mice first. Ocean currents brought creatures from South America rather than Central and North America to Galapagos Islands. Birds eating peppered moths is natural selection in action. Growth differences in fossil bears must be because they hibernated in different caves. Teeth become smaller with age. Different sub-species of the same bird have different length bills. Flowers, insects, etc., copycat one another’s shape, color, etc. (mimicry). Sexual preferences of animals might make changes within species. Sickle-cell anemia proves that natural selection occurs within mankind.

A Devonian fish probably climbed out of the water and became an amphibian, but, unfortunately, we do not have the missing link when this happened. Transitional fossil forms prove evolution, and we have one: the reptile-bird, Archaeopteryx.

Given enough time, evolution can occur. Rock strata time charts prove long ages. Evolution is occurring now in the Solomon Islands, as the Golden Whistler (bird) makes new subspecies (all of which look just about alike). Minks change color in winter, and this surely must have been caused by mutations at some time in the past.

Hydrogen must have clumped together to form stars. Perhaps it only happened in the past [at the Big Bang], but perhaps it is happening now. A cloud came together and formed the earth. All the planets have six of the elements, so this is an important proof of something.

Miller and Urey took complicated lab equipment and produced some dead amino acids.

There are many fossils outlines, impressions, casts, tracks, etc. Stone artifacts [arrowheads, etc.] are the most common remains of prehistoric man. The “oldest” fossils are about 2.7 billion years old. Most fossil animals suddenly appeared about 600 million years ago. Fossilized marine invertebrates. The “oldest” vertebrates (bony fish). Insects, land animals, and plants. The reptiles and dinosaurs. The mammals.

Apes and monkeys. Reconstructed “ape-men.” Suggested evolution of man from monkey. Stone tools. Cave paintings. “Evolution” of human societies. Evolutionary theory, although intrinsically separate from morality, is still not bad for society. The “future evolution” of man in regard to pollution control, dwindling resources, overpopulation.

That summarizes the evidence for evolution in an entire, recent, excellent book devoted to the subject. Throughout it all, did you find even one clear-cut evidence for evolution?




































Explore posts in the same categories: Evolution Cruncher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: