Scientists Admit: The Fossil Record Doesn’t Show Evolution Has Occurred

The fossil record in the sedimentary rocks is supposed to show the evolution of life to more advanced and complex life forms, over vast spans of time. Evolutionist looks to the fossils as proof that evolution took place. As Geologist Carl Dunbar stated:

“Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”

However, in the billions of fossils, there is not a single example of one species transitioning into another. There are no transitional fossils. Even the evolutionist admit that there are none. I include several quotes by evolutionists later in this post.

There are fossils from the embryonic stage, all the way to adulthood, for thousands of species. Yet, there is not one example in the fossil record of one species evolving into another. If it took millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of fossils, representing the change. The total lack of any visible evolutionary advancement in so many species of plants and animals should be a red flag that there is no evolution of the species taking place. Mankind has been witness to millions of species of plants and animals having become extinct. But during the same time, there has there has been no evolution of any new plant or animal. It seems that the theory of evolution must take more faith to believe in, than believing that an omnipotent God created the plants and animals.

Many evolutionists admit that the fossil record is totally lacking in any evidence of evolution taking place.

An example is Harvard evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould: “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” (Stephen Jay Gould; The Ediacaran Experiment)

Another example from paleontologist David Kitts: The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of the Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.”  (David B Kitts; Search for the Holy Transformation)

“Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. (David B. Kitts; Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory)

David M. Raup, head of geology at the University of Chicago, an iconoclastic and influential paleontologist, who was one of the leading figures of evolutionary biology, speaks about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support the evolution theory.

“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 transitions 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 appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”  (David. M. Raup; Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology)

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” (David M. Raup; Evolution, and the Fossil Record)

Evolutionists admit that there are no evidence that they can point to as a transition species.

   “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. (George Gaylord Simpson; Tempo and Mode in Evolution)

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.”  (Stephen Jay Gould; The Panda’s Thumb)

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. (David S. Woodruff; Evolution: The Paleobiological View)

“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” (Steven M. Stanley; The New Evolutionary Timetable)

The late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History wrote concerning the lack of transition species in his book “Evolution”:

“About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson; Evolution)

“In that great window to the past–the fossil record–we only find distinct plant and animal kinds, with no transitional forms. With the exception of creatures that have become extinct…. ALL life forms found in the fossils are just like those presently alive! To say it again: All non-extinct plant and animal fossils are the same as creatures now alive on the earth. There is NO evidence of evolution in the fossils. (Evolution

Even though there is no evidence within the fossil records to support evolution, there are a great many people who believe there is. This is mostly due to the fact that evolution has been claimed as a scientific fact, and has been taught in our universities as if it was fact rather than theory. The trouble is that even though evolution has not and cannot be proven, it has been propagated as scientific fact, to the point that even Christians are led astray. Another quote by professor and paleontologist David M. Raup, show how bad this problem is.

“One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood geology.” (David M. Raup; Evolution and the Fossil Record)

 As Christians, we must believe the Word of God over a theory that has never been and cannot be proved. In fact, as evidence mounts in this day of molecular biology, the theory of evolution is beginning to crumble. Only the scientific community dogmatic adherence to any option, rather than accept a divine Creator has kept it alive as the following statements show.

 Professor D.M.S. Watson, a leading evolutionary biologist of his day demonstrates the anti-God thinking that motivates the evolutionist:

“Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S.Watson;  Adaptation)

“One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” (Christian Schwabe; On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, Trends in Biochemical Sciences)

“Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.” (R.E.Dickerson;  Molecular Evolution)

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Scott C.Todd;  A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates)


Taken from: “Noah and The Great Flood: The Proof and Effects of It”

2 thoughts on “Scientists Admit: The Fossil Record Doesn’t Show Evolution Has Occurred

  1. I’m a believer. But how would I argue this if I shared it?. There are live specimens in transitional periods. Fish with limbs, snakes with shoulder and hip bones, and etc.
    To be clear I do believe that God spoke all manner of beasts into existence, and made Adam from dust with his own hands and breathed into his nostrils, life. But I am careful when posting things that I must stand behind.


  2. Another thing to consider is that if atheism and evolution were true, then everyone would be forced to believe and think the way we do, because our thoughts would be determined by natural processes. No one could therefore choose to believe anything and rationality would be an illusion, so no one could trust any conclusion that approves of atheism or evolution. So no one can justify people who believe in God of choosing to believe anything that contradicts those ideas (atheism and evolution) because of ignorance. And if evolution were true then belief in God and creation must also have evolved for a survival advantage, since most people in history and still in modern Times have been believers in God and the afterlife. It’s convenient for bigots to believe what they want until they completely consider the implications of what they choose to believe.
    Every alleged transitional fossil found has fully functional parts, not hybrid intermediates of different ones. Many alleged transitional forms are just drawings of imaginations of fossils missing parts required to get a more accurate idea of what it looked like, sometimes even just bones scattered across an area and then gathered together if they simply look like they could be part of the same creature. Some examples are ambelocetus and Lucy. There’s also the simple fact that if any life form were to go through a very gradual transition, then the parts it needs in order to live would at some point be incomplete, making them unable to function and we’d never have succeeding generations.
    Gene duplication and genetic recombination is manipulation of already existing information, not new genes being mutated into existence. More of the same is not new. Even mutations with beneficial side effects are usually more harmful than good and remove a useful gene that was once there. In breeding and bacterial resistance to antibiotics, this is what is observed.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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