Darwin himself was aware that the fossil record did not support his theory. The theory of evolution predicted that there would be a large number of transitionary species, and only a few examples had been found. Darwin made the prediction that in the future many of the missing links would be found. Since, many of the old transitionary species examples examples, such as those of the horse species
have been proven wrong.
Darwin's original theory had traces of science in it, because it made predictions that could be disproven. Philosophers have concluded that a key test of whether a theory is truly scientific is whether said theory can make a prediction that could potentially prove it wrong. So, when the transitionary species were not found, the theory of evolution was falsified. That should have been the end of story.
But evolutionists were unwilling to admit that their theory is simply wrong. To try to explain away the fossil record, evolutionists came up with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. The whole idea is that evolution occurs when a few animals become isolated, and separated from the rest of the population. They then evolve so fast that there is no opportunity to observe these transitionary species in the fossil record.
Here is what SJ Gould, the originator of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory says:
- "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals...is well documented."
One of the fundamental problems with this, is that evolution claims to explain how information in the genome (such as new proteins) arises through random mutations ocurring in large numbers of animals through millions of years. If as dictated by the theory of punctuated equilibrium evolution is ocurring so quickly with so few animals, how come it has not been observed in the laboratory?
Now of course, some evolutionist is going to come and say, that evolution has been observed in the lab. The answer of course is that, yes speciation has been observed in the higher animals. In all cases, the observed speciation has shown a
loss in the total information of the genome of the species. Evolutionists may point out bacteria's resistance to anti-biotics as "proof" of evolution. The problem with that is the bacteria are not "evolving" new enzymes. Either they develop resistance, by loosing the functionality of a protein, or they absorb genetic information from their environment. Natural selection is inadequate to account for the existance of a single protein.
Furthermore, consider Gould's statement that there are examples of transitionary species between larger groups. The natural question is how would anyone know whether the species are "transitionary". Evolutionists will claim that morphological and genetic characteristics can be used to determine whether a species is transitionary. The problem is that studying morphological characteristics will lead to a different 'common ancestor' than genetic characteristics. And if the genetic characteristics of different enzymes in different species are studied, then each protein predicts a different common ancestor. This is why evolutionists will now speak of 'evolution bushes' rather than evolutionary trees, the way that they used to.
Needless to say, the fact that there is no common ancestor is yet another falsification of the theory of evolution. Why does evolution continue to have adherents in spite that it is proven wrong by all available evidence?
