A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
The late Professor Stephen J. Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” No kidding, doc. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, given that the Darwinian model of evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
I wrote a very long post about the Lazarus Taxa in a post entitled “Creation: Lazarus Taxa Come Forth!” I talked about bugs and fish and flowers and spiders and plants and even people. The thing is, paleontologists all seem to want to “discover” a new species and have it named after themselves. A recent critical reorganization of all known dinosaurs, for example, showed that a huge number of simply immature (as in juvenile) specimens were granted a species name as if they were an entirely different species. So, a baby Something-a-saurus is called Something-else-a-saurus quite often.
In exactly the same way, when a fossilized cockroach is found in the dirt somewhere — in every meaningful morphological way identical to a modern day cockroach — it is christened a Cockroach-Something-Saurus. Usually, the “something” is the name of the paleontologist who “discovered” this exciting new species.
See, the problem is, they are identical. Maybe the ones we find in the fossil record are significantly older (biological age not assumed evolutionary age it died) or significantly larger, but both of those facts actually refute Darwin. It should no longer be a dead ringer for the ancient fossil, assuming evolution is true. It should be extinct. Or, it should be replaced by a differently evolved Ray. Or replaced even by some non-Ray. Something should be different after so many millions of years.
The tiny, metallic green dragonfly known as the Ancient Greenling Damselfly was found at Long Swamp, in the Discovery Bay Coastal Park near Portland. The damselfly, part of the dragonfly group Odonata, is the only living representative of the family Hemiphlebiidae. Its so-called ancient predecessors are found solely in a timeframe that Darwinists claim is 250-300 million-year-old fossil records anywhere from Brazil to Russia.
Okay. So, following evolutionary concepts, 300 million years ought to be more than enough time for mutations to occur in the damselfly and for natural selection to weed out the unfit and generate a new living form from the old. In fact, given the assumed evolutionary process of mutations and natural selection relentlessly occurring over time, even at miraculously slow rates, this vast age ought to guarantee at least some alteration in the insect. But not only is the damselfly still recognizable as a damselfly, but even more specifically as the Ancient Greenling Damselfly.
But it should no longer be a dead ringer for the ancient fossil, assuming evolution is true. It should be extinct. Or, it should be replaced by a differently evolved Damselfly. Or replaced even by some non-Damselfly. Something should be different after so many millions of years.
For more information about question number 10 in this searies, visit creation.com/living_fossils.
Darwinist apologists have no valid, cogent, sound explanation for the gaps in the fossil record because they are locked into a paradigm of uniformitarianism.
“The fossil record is often so sparse that … there are plenty of cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years without leaving a single fossil.” Peter J. Bowler, Review of In Search of Deep Time, by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999). In American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
A person with even a fragment of objectivity can see the foolishness in the constant Darwinian apologia. The truth is that the fossil record is not a record of long evolutionary ages, with distinctive life forms in each distinctive age, as Darwinists allege and purport, but rather of just one age, that of the great flood and the subsequent local catastrophes that followed the global flood. Little wonder, then, that practically all modern living organisms are represented in the rocks of the so-called geologic column.
In their nearly infinite variety, vast complexity, perfectly engineered design, and uncompromising beauty, all living things bear witness to the wisdom and power of our Creator, while the great panorama of suffering and death — and often even extinction — displayed in their fossilized preservation is a perpetual reminder, not of Darwinism and evolutionary theory, but of the terrible consequences of human sin on this earth.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.