Class Resources‎ > ‎

Do Animals Evolve ~ Part II

posted Feb 7, 2013, 3:13 PM by Grace Christian   [ updated Jun 12, 2014, 11:00 AM by Nate Mosley ]

Part II

In the last lesson, we talked about the question, do animals evolve? The question led us to information contained in our cells, as well as the fossil record and even quotes from Charles Darwin himself, which we will look closer at in lessons to come. If you consult a textbook, encyclopedia, evolutionary website, or television station for evidence of animal evolution, many times they give you a statement that assumes evolution has in fact taken place, rather than evidence for the theory. Here is a case in point from the Encyclopedia Britannica on the evolution of the turtle:

The evolution of the turtle is one of the most remarkable in the history of vertebrates. Unfortunately, the origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. By the middle of the Triassic Period (about 20,000,000 years ago) turtles were numerous and in possession of basic turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.

At first glance, it looks like turtles could be a marvelous example of evolution. However, if you read it again and look closely at what is being said, you come to a different conclusion. Basically, it says, due to the lack of fossils, there is no clue to the turtle's origin. When it first appeared, the turtle looked just like a turtle. Despite leaving more fossils and better fossils than most vertebrates, there are no intermediate forms. Its structure has not changed since its first appearance. Not exactly a beacon of light shining toward the truth of evolution. In fact, yet again, it is evidence against the theory and fits perfectly with God's Word.

Remember from last week's lesson that Charles Darwin, himself, in his book, "On the Origin of Species", said that a lack of intermediates in the fossil record would probably be the biggest argument against his theory. Still, he had faith that one day, the thousands upon thousands of intermediates would be found. 150 years later; however, that is not what science has shown.

Despite what you've been taught from an evolutionary friend trying to convince you, the fossil record does not show that all life evolved from a single common ancestor through minor changes. Evolutionists call it the "Cambrian Explosion", because virtually all the major animal forms appear suddenly without any trace of less complex ancestors.

Arial Roth, PhD in zoology put it this way in the book "Origins" in 1998,

“The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”

   So the obvious question here is, if evolution is true, where are the thousands of observable intermediates? Robert Carrol, a paleontologist and an evolutionary authority, says this in the book, "Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution",

Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups, with very few illustrating intermediate structures or ways of life.

So, according to the evidence produced by paleontology, our guide to whether or not evolution is true, life did not evolve gradually over long periods of time, from simple to complex forms. Instead, the fossils show that all the major animal groups appeared fully formed, all at one time. So how can so many scientists seemingly ignore this evidence and continue to believe in and promote the theory? Richard Dawkins, probably the world's most famous atheist, sums it up nicely,

"Both schools of evolutionary thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative."    

    So this quote, among many others I could show you, reveals the real problem. Evolution, abortion, immorality, among many other topics that seem to be taking over our world, are actually not the real problem. They are actually symptoms of the real problem, rejection of the One True God. Scientists will not allow a Divine Creator to be the answer, even if all the evidence points directly to Him. If you're trying to find the answer to the problem, 2+2, but will not allow 4 to be the answer, will you ever come to the right conclusion? It doesn't matter how much time and effort you put into it, or how smart you make your answer sound, you'll still be wrong because you have denied the one true answer.
Comments