Missing Links and Fossils

I frequently hear people talk about the fossil records and the scientific evidence that supports evolution. But does the evidence really support evolution? Ask any student and most likely you will hear them say that evolution is a proven fact. Not a theory, but a fact. The best support for evolution is the ignorance of people. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Most researchers on both sides acknowledge that it is a theory. Educators are the ones heralding it as fact. The purpose of this page is to present what I believe is an honest critique of evolution that hopefully you will find helpful. I want to start by looking at the sub-human links that have been discovered.

Neanderthal Man	No longer considered to be pre-man. Neanderthal is fully human but believed to have suffered from rickets due to malnutrition.
Cro-Magnon Man	Proven to be completely human and there is clear evidence of religious practices and artistic creativity. This so-called pre-human co-existed with contemporary man.
Piltdown Man	Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.
Java Man	Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.
Nebraska Man	An entire skeletal structure was created from a single tooth and heralded as the discovery of the missing link by evolutionary scientist. Additional research has proven that this tooth was actually the tooth of an extinct pig. This missing link was abandoned by evolutionary scientist but as always it is still taught as truth by evolutionary educators.
Zinjanthropus	Proven to be a primitive ape and has no ties to modern man or human development.
Lucy	Considered to be related to the arboreal ape. No evidence has been found that can tie this to modern man nor human development. However, lack of evidence does not deter evolutionist from declaring Lucy to be a missing link. Evidence is not essential (See Nebraska Man).
Australopithicines	Computer analysis show this is an extinct ape. No evidence exists that connect this to human development.
Archaeopteryx	This toothed bird is often seen in evolutionary lessons and is explained as a missing link showing the connection between birds and reptiles. Further study has shown that this bird was fully capable of flight. Teeth alone do not prove relationships between reptiles and birds. All birds are warm blooded for example, while all reptiles are cold blooded. The complete incompatibility between these two anatomy structures create a mountain of evidence that can't be overlooked because this ancient bird had teeth.

One last missing link that bears mentioning is the Coelacanth. This was strongly considered by evolutionary scientist to be an index fossil linking early cretaceous which were considered to have become extinct over 80 million years ago. Recently living specimens have been found near Madagascar. These were declared by evolutionary scientist to be the ancestors to amphibians, but the living specimens have eliminated this 'fact' as they are proven to be a true fish and not amphibians nor do they have amphibious traits.

Two things that become clear when evolution begins to unfold. First, evolutionists are desperate to prove evolution and any fragment will suffice if it is not disprovable. Who would have thought that creationist could track down the history of a single tooth? Real scientific method requires an arguable theory. If you can't prove or disprove or critically argue something, it isn't a true theory. For example, the fossil record is immensely rich yet it does not contain one single transitional form. The theory of transitioning from one form to a completely different form is arguable. The theory was presented and the research has been worldwide. Millions of fossils are on record without one single transitional form. The argument can logically be made that transitional evolution is not a valid theory because the fossil record contradicts it. An inarguable theory is desperation. Anyone can win an argument by presenting so called facts that don't have any supporting evidence. An example of this is the 'quantum leap' theory. An emerging theory by many top evolutionary scientist states that slow evolution may not have been how evolution occurred. The theory is that the change was rapid but rare. In other words, once every few 100's of millions of years or so, a phenomenon will occur such as an alligator laying an egg and a bird hatching out. These scientists say that DNA has blueprints for every living organism and randomly a sudden change will occur by chance.

The problem with this theory is that when that bird pops out, he has a lifespan of only a few years (if a predator or weather conditions don't shorten his life). Lets consider a cardinal. If a cardinal popped out, there would have to be another cardinal pop out around the same time in history. In a 100 million year process, two popping out at the same time by chance is virtually impossible. They also must be male and female or the species will die without reproduction. It is a fact that species can't cross mate with other species. These impossible odds have to be repeated for each species of each type of animals and insects. This doesn't even take into consideration interdependency. Animals that depend on other animals or plants for example. Many animals and insects are completely dependant on one type of plant for survival. Many plants are completely dependent on one type of animal or insect. There are many examples in science of this, but I will mention one. The extinct dodo bird details this fact. The dodo bird only survived on an island without predators. When travelers visited the island of Mauritius, cats were also introduced. The dodo soon became extinct. The primary food source of the dodo was the fruit from calvaria tree. After the dodo was extinct, it was soon discovered that these trees quit sprouting. The fruit from these trees contained seeds that were encased in a thick husk that prevents natural germination. When the dodo ate the fruit, his digestive system softened the husk which allowed for germination. Evolution cannot explain how the tree evolved being dependent on the dodo and the dodo evolved being dependent on the Calvaria tree. How did evolution place both on the same island at the same time with a need for each other? There are many such examples in nature. Perhaps the answer is found in this statement:

Nature preaches thousands of sermons, but many will darken their own hearts so they can refuse the truth. The will call themselves wise and intellectual elites, but their willful blindness makes them into fools. I think we can see this truth in abundance today.

The second thing that becomes clear when observing evolution is the suppression of opposing views. You are free to think as long as you think within the realm of evolution. When a tooth is declared to be the missing link that ties apes to man, it makes headlines, science journals, lectures and text books. When it is disproven as belonging to a pig, it is swept under the rug. No headlines, no retraction statements, no lectures. It is quietly dropped. The masses are never informed of the error and therefore it continues to be presented as evidence. This deception is called education and those who believe it arrogantly condescend those who question the evidence. Countless school and college text books are teaching evolutionary 'facts' that even evolutionary scientists consider to be a mockery. The embarrassment of making such a pretence of discovery and shame of admitting defeat to rival point of views discourages evolutionist from admitting an error to the public. They would rather an error to be taught as science than risk the creation world view from gaining acceptance. Evidence that supports creation is ignored or disputed even if there is no basis for the dispute, while evidence supporting evolution is shouted from the rooftops and defended with vigor even though the evidence has no basis.

I have mentioned the fossil records many times, one thing I want to mention before ending my argument is concerning the fossil record. How are fossils formed? If an animal dies in the forest, does it fossilize? Anyone who has any knowledge about fossils knows a dead animal will not fossilize. If a rabbit dies in your back yard, in a few months, you will not be able to find a single trace of it. Burying animals do not create fossils either. They will quickly decay and leave no trace. Fossils are created by a sudden burial under pressure in sediment. Almost all scientists agree that severe regional flooding causes the necessary conditions for fossils. If you go to each fossil rich area and ask a scientist, they most will tell you severe localized flooding caused the burial that soon became fossils. If you go to a different continent and ask, the answer will be the same - severe localized flooding. Now just try to tie these localized floods together and the trouble begins. At this point you will become a religious fanatic. Go figure. The fossil record gives clear evidence of the biblical account of the flood. The fossil records do not give any evidence of evolution and transition, what the fossil record does give is evidence of extinction. A flood would produce this mass extinction as indicated by the fossil record.