I FOSSILI sono resti di antiche forme di vita preservati nella crosta terrestre. Può trattarsi di scheletri o di parti d’essi, come ossa, denti o gusci. Un fossile può anche consistere in una traccia — ad esempio un’orma o un’impronta — lasciata da quello che un tempo era un organismo vivente. Molti fossili non contengono più la sostanza organica originale, ma sono costituiti da depositi minerali che, infiltratisi, ne hanno assunto la forma.
2 Perché i fossili sono importanti per l’evoluzione? Un genetista, G. L. Stebbins, ne sottolinea una ragione fondamentale: “Nessun biologo ha effettivamente visto l’origine di un importante gruppo di organismi per evoluzione”.1 Perciò oggi non si vedono sulla terra organismi viventi che si evolvano in altre forme di vita. Al contrario, sono tutti morfologicamente completi e distinti dagli altri tipi. Come osservò il genetista Theodosius Dobzhansky, “il mondo vivente non è una singola sequenza . . . collegata da serie ininterrotte di gradi intermedi”.2 E Charles Darwin ammise che “la distinzione delle forme [viventi] specifiche, e il fatto che esse non sono collegate da innumerevoli anelli di transizione, costituisce una difficoltà very clear ".3
3 Therefore the different varieties of organisms living today not in any way support the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record, gained as much importance. It was thought that the fossils could at least provide confirmation of the theory of evolution needed. What to Look
4 If evolution were a fact, the fossil record certainly reveal the gradual transformation of a living species to another. And so it should be, regardless of which of the various evolutionary theories are welcome. The same scientists who support the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium' or "intermittent" theory that predicts the most rapid changes, they recognize that the alleged changes would, however, occurred over many thousands of years. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is no need for fossil link.
5 Moreover, if evolution was based on fact, the fossil record should show sketches of new organs in living things. There should be at least some fossils with legs, wings, eyes, bones and other organs during development. For example, should be fins of fish that were turning in legs of amphibians, with feet and toes, and gills that were evolving in the lungs. You should find reptiles with forelimbs that were transformed into birds' wings, the hind legs that were changing in clawed paws, scales that were becoming pens, and mouths were transformed into horny beak.
6 Speaking of this theory, the British magazine New Scientist said: "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lines of organisms indicating a continuous and gradual change over long periods of time" .4 As Darwin himself asserted, "really must be the huge number of intermediate varieties which formerly existed on earth ".5
7 On the other hand, if the creation account in Genesis is true, the fossil record does not should contain traces of life forms in flux. Should reflect the statement of Genesis that each of the different forms of life would be reproduced only "after their kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Moreover, if the living came into existence through a creative act, in the fossil record should not find bones or incomplete organs, under development. All the fossils should be complete and highly complex, as the living today.
8 Moreover, if the living were created, one might expect that appeared suddenly in the fossil record, with no previous connections with life. What would happen If you find that this is so? Darwin admitted frankly: "If many species. . . were actually appeared suddenly, this fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution ".6
To what extent is the full documentation?
9 However, the fossil record is sufficiently complete to permit, after an honest assessment of whether supports the creation or evolution? More than a century ago, Darwin thought not. What was wrong in the fossil record available in his day? Did not contain the transitional links needed to support his theory. This prompted him to say: "Why, then, every geological formation and every stratum are full of such intermediate links? What is certain is that geology does not reveal such a perfectly graduated organic chain, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be done to the theory ".7
10 The fossil record exists in the days of Darwin was also a disappointment for him in another respect. Darwin explained: "The sudden appearance of whole groups of species, in some formations, was challenged by several paleontologists. . . as a decisive objection to the theory of transformation of species. " And again: "There is a second difficulty with the first, and much more serious. I refer to the sudden appearance of species a diverse fra le principali suddivisioni del regno animale nelle rocce fossilifere più profonde che si conoscano. . . . Il problema è attualmente insolubile; e può essere un valido argomento contro le opinioni [evoluzionistiche] qui esposte”.8
11 Darwin cercò di risolvere questi enormi problemi mettendo sotto accusa la documentazione fossile. Ad esempio disse: “Considero i dati geologici come una storia del mondo tramandata imperfetta. . . . La nobile scienza della geologia perde gloria per la estrema incompletezza dei documenti”.9 Sia lui che altri pensavano che col passar del tempo si sarebbero certamente trovati gli anelli fossili mancanti.
12 Ora, dopo ben oltre un secolo di scavi intensive, was unearthed a wealth of fossils. The documentation is still just as "imperfect"? The book Processes of Organic Evolution (Processes of organic evolution) observes: "The records of ancient forms of life is now complete and is enhanced as more and more paleontologists find, describe and compare the new fossils" .10 E Porter Kier, researcher the Smithsonian Institution, added: "In museums around the world there are a hundred million fossils, all recorded and identified" 11 Therefore, in Guide to the history of the Earth says: "With the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us a excellent picture of life in ages past '.12
13 After all this time, and with all the millions of fossils collected, what now reveal the documentation? Steven Stanley, evolutionist, says that the fossils "reveal something new and surprising about our biological" .13 The book A vision of life, written by three evolutionists, he adds: "In the fossil are seen many trends that paleontologists do not were able to explain ".14 What do find so" amazing "and 'inexplicable' these evolutionists?
14 What is puzzling the scientists is the fact that the large number of fossils available today shows exactly the same as that revealed the days of Darwin: the basic living species suddenly appeared and have not undergone appreciable changes for long periods of time. I have never found a link between two key species. Therefore, the fossil evidence attests to the exact opposite of what many expected.
15 After forty years of research, the Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation: "In light of the paleontological data can not even do a caricature of evolution. The collection of fossils is now so complete that. . . the lack of transitional series can not be attributed to the scarcity of material. The gaps are real and will never be filled "15
life suddenly appears
16 look more closely at the evidence. In his book, Red Giants and White Dwarfs (red giants and white dwarfs), Robert Jastrow says: "At some point during the first billion years, appeared on the surface of the earth life. Slowly, as evidenced by the fossil, living organisms began their ascent from the most simple to the complex. " From this description one would expect the fossil record certifying a slow evolution from the first "simple" life forms to more complex ones. Yet the same book says: "That crucial first billion years, during which life originated, is made of blank pages in the history of the earth ".16
17 And then, it is correct to define" simple "these early forms of life? "If we go back in time to the period of the older rocks," says Evolution from Space, "the fossil residues of ancient life forms found in the rocks do not reveal a simple principle. Although we may be inclined to consider simple bacteria and algae fossils and fossil fungi than a dog or a horse, their level of information, however, remains enormously high. The majority of the biochemical complexity of life was already present at the time in cui si formarono le rocce più antiche della superficie terrestre”.17
18 Da questo inizio, è possibile trovare una qualsiasi testimonianza indicante che organismi unicellulari si siano evoluti in organismi pluricellulari? “La documentazione fossile non contiene tracce di questi stadi preliminari nello sviluppo degli organismi pluricellulari”, dice Jastrow.18 E sempre lui afferma: “I reperti fossili conservati nelle rocce contengono molto poco oltre a batteri e piante unicellulari, finché, circa un miliardo di anni fa, dopo un progresso invisibile protrattosi per circa tre miliardi di anni, si ebbe un decisivo salto di qualità: sulla Terra comparvero i primi organismi pluricellulari”.19
19 Consequently, at the beginning of what is called the Cambrian period, we see in the fossil record to an inexplicable turn spectacular. A wide variety of sea creatures complex and fully developed, many of them with a hard outer shell, appear so suddenly that, in relation to this period, there is often talk of an 'explosion' of living creatures. A vision of life the book describes it as follows: "In an interval of 10 million years at the beginning of the Cambrian period, appeared all major groups of invertebrates with skeleton, giving rise to the greatest explosion of diversification registratasi on our planet." Appeared gastropods, sponges, starfish, trilobites (an extinct type of shellfish) and many other sea creatures. Interestingly, the same book says: "Some extinct trilobites had eyes more complex and efficient than any other arthropod living" .20
There are 20 rings of fossil link between this explosion of life and life forms earlier? At the time of Darwin, these rings did not exist. He admitted: "I can not find satisfactory answer to the question why there are no rich deposits of fossils belonging to these supposedly primitive periods, earlier Cambrian era" .21 The situation is different today? About Darwin's observation the "sudden appearance of whole groups of species," the paleontologist Alfred S. Romer wrote, "Under the [Cambrian], there are considerable thickness of sedimentary formations where they should be the progenitors of recognizable forms in the Cambrian. But they are not, in these ancient layers and there is little sign of life, and one could say that the general picture is consistent with the idea of \u200b\u200ba special creation at the beginning of the Cambrian. 'When asked why there are no rich deposits of fossils belonging to these supposedly primitive periods, earlier Cambrian era,' said Darwin, 'I can not find a satisfactory reply'. Nor can we find us today ".22
21 Some argue that the Precambrian rocks have been altered too much by heat and pressure to preserve fossils of joining the rings, or in shallow seas were not able to retain sediment rock fossils. "None of these assumptions has been confirmed," say the evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. He adds, "have been discovered many Precambrian rocks do not change, which do not contain fossils of complex organisms" .23
22 These facts have led the biochemical D. B. Gower said: "The story of creation contained in Genesis and the theory of evolution were irreconcilable. Uno dei due doveva essere giusto e l’altro sbagliato. La storia dei fossili dava ragione al racconto della Genesi. Nelle rocce più antiche non abbiamo trovato una serie di fossili che mostrasse i cambiamenti graduali dalle creature più primitive alle forme sviluppate, ma piuttosto, nelle rocce più antiche, l’improvvisa comparsa di specie sviluppate. Fra una specie e l’altra c’era un’assenza totale di fossili intermedi”.24
23 Lo zoologo Harold Coffin è giunto a questa conclusione: “Se l’ipotesi dell’evoluzione graduale dal semplice al complesso è esatta, si dovrebbero poter trovare gli antenati di queste creature viventi improvvisamente apparse nel Cambriano; ma non have been found and scientists admit that there is little hope to find them in the future. According to the facts only, based on what actually is in the earth, the most likely theory is that of a sudden creative act that gave rise to the major forms of life ".25
Repeat the sudden appearance, minimal changes
24 in the upper layers to the 'explosion' of life in the Cambrian, fossil evidence is always the same: new animal and plant species occur suddenly, without any links to previous forms of life. And once it came into existence, perpetuated with little change. The book The Evolution evolution says: "Now the fossil record reveals that, in most cases, the species survive for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations to evolve without appreciably. . . . Since its origin onwards, the species suffered mostly minor changes, before becoming extinct "
.26 25 For example, insects appear suddenly in the fossil record, and in great abundance, without any evolutionary ancestor. And until today have not changed much. About the discovery of a fossil fly which has been assigned "40 million years," Dr. George Poinar jr. says: "The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to that of flies present. Wings, legs, head and even the internal cellular structure have a very modern ".27 And in a commentary published in the Globe and Mail of Toronto that read:" Having risen to 40 million years the evolutionary scale, they have done in virtually no appreciable progress ".28
26 A similar picture can be found about the plants. The rocks are fossil leaves of many trees and shrubs that differ little from those of the same plants that exist today: oak, walnut, hickory, vines, magnolia, palm and many others. The animals follow the same pattern. The ancestors of those living today appear suddenly in the fossil record, and are very similar to their counterparts living. There are many varieties, but all are easily identifiable with the same "species". Discover magazine highlights an example: "The horseshoe crab [Xiphosura polyphemus]. . . There is virtually unchanged for 200 million years ".29 Even the animals that became extinct followed the same pattern. The dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no connection to ancestral forms. Multiplied considerably, and then die out.
27 In this regard, the Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says: "In the sequence of the species appear very suddenly, shows an almost absolute stability or in the course of their existence in the documentation, and then disappear abruptly from it. It is not always clear - indeed, it is rarely - if their descendants were actually better suited than their predecessors. In other words, it is difficult to see an improvement in organic .30
No features of transition
28 Another difficulty is the fact that the evolution in the fossil record can not occur in any bone or body part sizes that can be interpreted as sketches of new features. There are, for example, fossil various types of flying creatures: birds, bats, pterodactyls extinct. According to the theory of evolution have evolved from ancestral forms of transition. But they have not found a single one. There is not a trace. There are fossils of giraffes with long necks two thirds or three quarters of the current giraffe? There are fossils of birds whose bill was being evolved from a reptilian jaw? There is some evidence from the fossils of fish that they were developing a basin like that of amphibians, or fish whose fins were turning into legs, feet and toes of amphibians? The facts show that the search for these characteristics of transition in the fossil record has proved fruitless.
29 New Scientist points out that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lines of organisms indicating a continuous and gradual change over long periods of time." But he admits: "Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet these expectations, because each fossil species are rarely linked together by intermediate forms known. . . . it seems that the known fossil species do not evolve even over millions of years ".31 And the geneticist Stebbins writes," There are no known transitional forms between any of the major phyla of animals or plants. " He speaks of the "big gap between many of the major categories of bodies" .32 As acknowledged by the book The evolution of evolution, "the fossil record does not, in fact, convincingly no transition from one species to another. Moreover, the species are to persist for surprisingly long periods of time "33 - The italics are ours.
30 This is consistent with the comprehensive study prepared by the Geological Society of London and Paleontological Association of England, whose results John N. Moore, professor of natural sciences, wrote: "About 120 scientists, all specialists, have completed the thirty chapters of a monumental work of more than 800 pages to present the fossil record of plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . As you can see, each major form or type of plant and animal has a history separate and independent of all other forms or types! Both groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, rabbits, squirrels, etc.., Appeared for the first time when they were all distinct from each other as they are today. There is no trace of a common ancestor, and even less connected with some reptile, alleged father ". Moore adds: "In the fossil record could not find transitional forms, most likely because there are no own forms of transition in the fossil record. It is very likely that there has never been a transition from one species to another and / or a plant species to another ".34
31 Therefore the situation in the days of Darwin has not changed. The fossil evidence is still some years ago that described by the zoologist D'Arcy Thompson in his book On Growth and Form (On Growth and Form): "Darwinian evolution is not explained to us how birds descended from reptiles, mammals the early quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, from invertebrates or vertebrates. . . . Going to try to form a link is to seek to fill gaps in vain, forever ".35
And the horse?
32 However, it was often said that at least the horse is a classic example of evolution documented by fossils. The World Book Encyclopedia says: "The horses are among the most documented examples of evolutionary development" .36 The figures used to illustrate the topic begin with a small animal and end with the great horses of today. But this really has the support of fossil evidence?
33 The Encyclopædia Britannica notes, "The evolution of the horse has never been a straight" 37 In other words, the fossil evidence does not reveal a gradual development from all the small animal al cavallo grande. L’evoluzionista Hitching, a proposito di questo tanto decantato modello evolutivo, dice: “Descritto un tempo come semplice e lampante, è ora così complicato che l’accettare una versione anziché un’altra è più una questione di fede che di scelta razionale. Eohippus, il presunto cavallo primitivo, che secondo gli esperti si sarebbe estinto molto tempo fa e che ci è noto solo attraverso i fossili, potrebbe in realtà essere vivo e vegeto e potrebbe non essere affatto un cavallo, bensì un timido animale delle dimensioni di una volpe, una procavia che si vede sfrecciare nella boscaglia africana”.38
34 Definire il piccolo Eohippus l’antenato del cavallo richiede uno sforzo d’immaginazione, specialmente alla luce di ciò che dice il libro L’evoluzione dell’evoluzione: “Per molto tempo . . . si credette che [l’Eohippus] si fosse lentamente, ma continuamente, trasformato in un animale dai caratteri più tipicamente equini”. Ma questo assunto è sostenuto dai fatti? “Le specie fossili di [Eohippus] mostrano scarse tracce di modificazioni evolutive”, risponde lo stesso libro. Parlando delle testimonianze fossili, ammette perciò che “non documentano l’intera storia della famiglia degli equidi”.39
35 Pertanto ora alcuni scienziati dicono che il piccolo Eohippus non è mai stato un cavallo né un its ancestor. And each type included in the online horse fossil reveals a remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and other alleged evolutionary ancestors. It should not seem surprising that there are fossils of horses in different shapes and sizes. Horses still range from small ponies to large horses. They are all varieties in the family of horses.
What really say the fossils
36 If you let speak the fossil record, his testimony is not in favor of evolution, but creation. Shows that many different species of living creatures suddenly appeared. Even with a wide variety within each species, they were not connected in any way with the evolutionary ancestral form, nor were they united by evolutionary link to other living species came after them. Various species maintained a greater stability for long periods of time before becoming extinct, while others still exist.
37 "The concept of evolution can not be regarded as a scientifically proven explanation for the presence of different forms of life," says the evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life (Order: in life). Why? "No careful analysis of biogeographical distribution and the fossil record," he adds, "can withstand a direct evolution" .40
38 Il ricercatore imparziale è chiaramente portato a concludere che i fossili non sostengono la teoria dell’evoluzione. Anzi, l’evidenza fossile accresce sensibilmente il peso degli argomenti a favore della creazione. Lo zoologo Coffin scrive: “Per gli scienziati laici, i fossili, tracce di vita passata, costituiscono l’ultima e decisiva corte d’appello, perché la documentazione fossile è l’unica storia autentica della vita di cui possa disporre la scienza. Se questa storia fossile non concorda con la teoria dell’evoluzione — e abbiamo visto che non concorda — cosa dobbiamo dedurne? Dobbiamo dedurne che le piante e gli animali furono creati nelle loro forme fondamentali. The essential facts of the fossil record support the creation, not evolution ".41 The astronomer Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, recognizes that 'the fossil record could be reconciled with the idea of \u200b\u200ba great project'.
What the fossils say. . . the origin of living
On the origin of life:
"The Book of age, recorded in the crust, is made for at least three-quarters of white pages." - The world viviamoc
"The first steps. . . are not known;. . . no trace left of it. " - Red Giants and White Dwarfsd
On multicellular life:
"How to have originated multicellular animal organisms, and if this has occurred once or more and one or more ways, are constantly debated and difficult issues that result. . . 'In the final analysis, practically insoluble'. " - Sciencee
"The fossil record does not contain traces of these preliminary stages in the development of multicellular organisms." - Red Giants and White Dwarfsf
on plant life:
"Most botanists addresses the documentation fossil to shed light on the subject. But. . . was not found nothing useful for this purpose. . . . There is no trace of ancestral forms. - The Natural History of Palmsg
insects:
"The fossil record provides no information on the origin of insects." - Encyclopædia Britannicah
"There are no known fossils that lets you know what they looked like the ancestors of insects." - The insects
on vertebrates:
"The fossil remains, however, does not provide information about of vertebrates. " - Encyclopædia Britannicaj
on fish:
"To our knowledge, no 'ring' connecting this new animal to any previous form of life. The fish just appeared. " - Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal Worldk
On fish evolved into amphibians:
"Exactly how or why it evolved is something that probably will never know." - The Fishesl
that amphibians evolved into reptiles
"One of the most disappointing in the history of the fossils is the that it tells us very little about the evolution of reptiles during the period when they were developing this ability to lay eggs in their shells. " - The rettilim
On reptiles evolved into mammals
"There is no ring [linking] mammals and reptiles." - The Reptilesn
'Fossils, unfortunately, provide very little information about the animals that are believed to have been the first true mammals'. - Mammals
On reptiles evolved into birds
"The transition from reptiles to birds is even more poorly documented. - Processes of Organic Evolutionp
"It has not been found any fossil of a reptile that resembles a bird." - The World Book Encyclopediaq
On the apes:
"Unfortunately, the fossil record that would allow us to shed light on the emergence of great apes is still hopelessly incomplete." - The Primatesr
"The apes, for example, seem to have come out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil record. " - Science Digests
from apes to humans:
"There are no fossils or other physical evidence directly linking the man with the apes." - Science Digestt
"The human family consists of a single line of descent that leads from an apelike ancestor to our species." - The evolution of evolution
0 comments:
Post a Comment