There are species, but no ancestors - inconsistencies in evolution

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Fossil history is characterized by two features. First, the stability of plant or animal forms when they have already appeared. The second is the suddenness with which these forms appear and, in fact, subsequently disappear.

New forms emerge in fossil history without obvious ancestors; likewise, they suddenly disappear without leaving any obvious descendants. We can say that practically fossil evidence is the history of a huge chain of creations, united only by the choice of form, and not by evolutionary links.

Professor Gould sums it up as follows: “In any particular region, a species does not arise gradually through the planned transformation of its ancestors; it appears suddenly and immediately and fully formed .

We can observe this process almost everywhere. When, say, about 450 million years ago, the first fossil land plants appeared, they arose without any signs of previous development. And yet, even in that early era, all the major varieties are present.

According to the theory of evolution, this cannot be, unless we assume that none of the expected binding forms has turned into a fossil. Which seems highly unlikely.

It is the same with flowering plants: although the period before their appearance is distinguished by a large variety of fossils, no forms have been found that could be their ancestors. Their origins also remain unclear.

The same anomaly is found in the animal kingdom. Fish with a spine and a brain first appeared about 450 million years ago. Their direct ancestors are unknown. And an additional blow to evolutionary theory is that these first jawless, but shell-shaped fish had a partially bony skeleton.

The usually presented picture of the evolution of the cartilaginous skeleton (as in sharks and rays) into the bony skeleton is, frankly, incorrect. In fact, these boneless fish appear 75 million years later in fossil history.

In addition, the development of the jaws was an essential stage in the supposed evolution of fish. However, the first jawed fish in fossil history appeared suddenly, while it is impossible to point to any earlier jawless fish as the source of its future evolution.

Another oddity: lampreys - jawless fish - still exist perfectly today. If jaws provided such an evolutionary advantage, then why didn't these fish become extinct?

No less mysterious is the development of amphibians - aquatic animals capable of breathing air and living on land. As Dr. Robert Wesson explains in his book Beyond Natural Selection, “The stages at which fish gave birth to amphibians are unknown … the very first land animals emerge with four well-developed limbs, a shoulder and pelvic girdle, ribs and a distinct head … several million years, over 320 million years ago, a dozen orders of amphibians suddenly appear in fossil history, and none, apparently, is the ancestor of any other."

Mammals exhibit the same suddenness and rapidity of development. The earliest mammals were small animals that lived a secretive life in the era of the dinosaurs - 100 million or more years ago.

Then, after the mysterious and still unexplained extinction of the latter (about 65 million years ago), more than a dozen groups of mammals appear in fossil history at the same time - about 55 million years ago.

Among the fossils of this period are fossilized specimens of bears, lions and bats, which have a modern appearance.

And what makes the picture even more complicated - they appear not in one particular region, but simultaneously in Asia, South America and South Africa. To top it all, there is no certainty that the small mammals of the dinosaur era were indeed the ancestors of later mammals.

All fossil history is replete with gaps and riddles. For example, no fossil links are known between the first vertebrates and primitive creatures of an earlier period - chordates, who are considered the ancestors of vertebrates.

The amphibians that exist today are strikingly different from the first known amphibians: there is a gap of 100 million years between these ancient and later forms in fossil history.

It seems that the Darwinian theory of evolution is literally crumbling into dust before our very eyes. Probably, somehow it is possible to save Darwinian idea of "natural selection", but only in a significantly modified form. It is clear that there is no evidence of the development of any new forms of plants or animals. Only when a living form has appeared, then only, perhaps, natural selection plays a role. But he works only on what already exists.

Not only scientists, but also college and university students conduct breeding experiments on the fruit fly - Drosophila. They are told that they are demonstrating clear evidence of evolution. They create mutations in the species, give her eyes of different colors, a stem growing out of her head, or perhaps a double thorax. Perhaps they even manage to grow a fly with four wings instead of the usual two.

However, these changes are only a modification of the already existing species characteristics of the front sight: four wings, for example, are nothing more than a doubling of the original two. It has never been possible to create any new internal organ, just as it has not been possible to transform a fruit fly into something resembling a bee or a butterfly.

It is impossible even to transform it into another kind of fly. As always, it remains a member of the Drosophila genus. "Natural selection may explain the origin of adaptive changes, but it cannot explain the origin of species." And even this limited application runs into problems.

How, for example, can natural selection explain the fact that humans - the only species of living things - have different blood types? How is he able to explain the fact that one of the earliest known fossil species - the Cambrian trilobite - has an eye so complex and so effective that it was not surpassed by any later representative of its phylum (the primary section in the classification of animals and plants)?

And how could feathers have evolved? Dr. Barbara Stahl, the author of the academic work on evolution, admits: "How they arose, presumably from the scales of reptiles, is beyond analysis."

At the very beginning, Darwin realized that he was faced with serious problems. The development of complex organs, for example, undermined his theory to the limit. For until such an organ began to function, for what need was natural selection to encourage its development?

Professor Gould asks, “What is the use of imperfect embryonic stages of advantageous structures? What's the use of half a jaw or half a wing?"

Or maybe half an eye? The same question arose somewhere in Darwin's mind. In 1860 he confessed to a colleague: "The eye still leads me to a cold shiver." And no wonder.

PS: Until science understands the multidimensionality of the Universe, it cannot solve the mystery of evolution.