Does anyone really know where the plants and animals originated? Research scientists, who spend their lives trying to answer such questions, tell us that no one really knows. The truth is that evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of the Species Unknown
The Experts Have No Idea How the Species Originated: This includes the top names in the field
Only the True Species Really Exist: The rest are paperwork classifications
Such Basic Flaws Doom Evolutionary Theory: The scientific evidence supporting the theory just has not been found
Verification of the Theory Cannot Be Found: The situation appears hopeless
There Should Be No Distinct Species: There should only be a blur of living, evolving creatures
It Is All a Great Mystery: The evolutionists are confused and know not what to do
Conclusion: Only God could make the species
This material is excerpted from the book,
. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
Where DID the species come from? The evolutionists have no idea. After years of study into the matter, they have drawn a blank. Here are additional statements by scientists, in which they discuss this mystery. For more, you will want to open the file, Scientists Speak about Speciation.
This includes the top names in the field.
*Goldschmidt tells us there is nothing known about the origin [evolutionary ancestry] of any species.
"The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories."—*Richard Goldschmidt, The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165.
Taxonomists are the ones who decide which species are related to which. They are the ones who construct the plant and animal "family trees." But *Mayr tells us the taxonomists do not know what those relationships really are.
"It comes as rather a surprise to most nontaxonomists how uncertain our understanding of degrees of relationship among organisms still is today. For instance, it is still unknown for most orders of birds which other order is a given order's nearest relative. The same is true for many mammalian families and genera, for instance the Lagomorpha, Tubulidentata, Xenarthra, and Tupaia.
"Honesty compels us to admit that our ignorance concerning these relationships is still great, not to say overwhelming."—*Ernst Mayr, the Growth of Biological Thought (1982), pp. 217-218.
*Gould says it even more clearly: Darwin and his followers recognized that there ought to be a lengthy gradation of creatures linking each species to their ancestor species. But modern biologists have abandoned the notion, for they know that the gradations do not exist.
"To Darwin, speciation entailed the same expectation as phyletic evolution: a long insensibly graded chain of intermediate forms. Our present texts have not abandoned this view, although modern biology has."—*Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.
The rest are paperwork classifications.
Only the species is natural, only it is real. All the other classifications (with the exception of some genera which should be listed as species) are artificial category labels.
"Higher categories (genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and even kingdoms), though they do represent greater levels of evolutionary divergence, are still artificial groupings made by humans for convenience in taxonomic work. They are not natural groups the way the species are."—*W. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), pp. 510-511.
Only the species really count for anything.
"The species is the supreme unit in nature, and not an artificial product of the taxonomist nor an evolutionary widening of a continuous stream of variations. As a sphere of variation the species is constant."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Artbildung (Synthetic Speculation), p. 1186.
Genetics has provided no information regarding the origins of the various species.
"It is an irony of evolutionary genetics that, although it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin of species . . We know virtually nothing about the genetic changes that occur in species formation."—*R. Lewontin, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (1974), p. 159.
Each species is walled into its own structure and traits; transmutations from one to another just does not occur.
"Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another—the essential basis of Darwinism."—*McNair Wilson, "The Witness of Science," in the Oxford Medical Publications (1942).
The scientific evidence supporting the theory just has not been found.
The defects in evolutionary theory are serious, and more obvious with the passing of time.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
Saying that one thing can turn into another doesn't make it so.
"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
*Kerkut surveys the field:
"These assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification . . It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis (spontaneous generation) did occur, and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally . . From our limited experience it is clear that the biochemical systems within protoplasm are not uniform, i.e. there is no established biochemical unity."—*G. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960).
The situation appears hopeless.
"We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated . . The precise relationship of the four classes of Protozoa is uncertain . . The Viruses, Rickettsiae, Bacteria and Protozoa are all quite distinct from one another, and their interrelationship is anything but clear and certain . .
"What conclusion can be drawn concerning the possible relationship between the Protozoa and Metazoa? The only thing that is certain is that, at present, we do not know this relationship . . We can, if we like, believe that one or other of the various theories is the more correct, but we have no real evidence . . they do indicate that the difference between the coelenterates and the sponges are quite considerable and basic. It is thus doubtful if there is any close relationship between these two groups. It is also impossible to state whether the sponges arose earlier than the coelenterates . . Our conclusion, therefore, is that the situation is not at all clear . .
"It is difficult to tell which are the most primitive from amongst the Porifera, Mesozoa, Coelenterata, Ctenophora or Platyhelminthia, and it is not possible to decide the precise interrelationship of these groups . . Thus though one can arrange a series . . there is no historical justification of either such series . .
"We still know very little about the primitive anthozoans but it requires a lot of imagination to bridge the gap between the Antipatharia and the Protozoa . . There is no clear indication that the ctenophores either gave rise to or were derived from the Turbellaria . . It would appear that the relationship between the various invertebrate phyla is a very tenuous one . .
"Though it is useful to consider that the relationships determined by comparative anatomy and embryology gives proof of a monophyletic origin of the major phyla, this can only be done by leaving out much of the available information . .
"It is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures [of horse evolution] are true, or even that they are the best representations of the truth that are available to us at the present time . . In effect, much of the evolution of the major groups of animals has to be taken on trust . .
"Of course one can say that the small observable changes in modern species may be the sort of thing that leads to all the major changes, but what right have we to make such an extrapolation? . . It is premature, not to say arrogant, on our part if we make any dogmatic assertion as to the mode of evolution of the major branches of the animal kingdom . .
"I think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence."—*G. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960). [For more on the Horse Series, see our book, Similarities (Order Sheet).]
Evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain the several million varied species and all their distinctive features.
"Although natural selection theory fails to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties, its greatest shortcoming, in terms of evolutionary theory, is it fails to explain evolutionary diversity."—*D. Rosen, "Darwin's Demon," in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978), p. 372.
There should only be a blur of living, evolving creatures.
If evolution were true, the biological world ought to be like living ropes; instead it is like living marbles. Instead of continuous transitions, there are only discrete species; each one different than the next.
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form any kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by an unbroken series of intergrade, but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, (1941), p. 3.
Not once has any scientist ever found an instance in which one species produced another.
"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another . . It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis."—*T.H. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation, p. 42.
*Darwin considered it "a very obvious difficulty." Well, so much for Darwin.
" . . The distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (6th ed., 1927), p. 322.
It is no new discovery that species are distinctly different from one another.
"Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to nonbiologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 105.
The evolutionists are confused and know not what to do.
One of the four leading evolutionary spokesman in the mid-20th century said this:
"Professor Haldane stated at a (December 1951) conference of the Biology council held in Birmingham that natural selection weeds out extremes of all kinds, especially those caused by mutations which are very different from the normal. He said, `I regret to have to inform you that natural selection has not been observed to cause evolutionary change.' During the same talk Professor Haldane gave it as his opinion that when two mutually sterile offspring had been bred from a common ancestor, as was done in the case of Drosophila, it could not be claimed that these were two new species. According to him, the geneticists have not yet succeeded in breeding a new species of Drosophila."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), pp. 75-76.
Neither natural selection nor the geneticists have been able to produce new species.
" . . Nobody has ever succeeded in producing a new species, not to mention the higher categories, by selection of micromutations."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Theoretical Genetics.
It is impossible and illogical, but it happened anyway.
"The birth of both the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion."—*Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (2nd Ed.), chap. 21.
There is no such thing as species in the process of changing from one to another.
"Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1960), p. 396 ["Incipient" = the early, initial stages of something new].
"One species does not grow from the seed of another species."—*Sir Gavin de Beer, Charles Darwin" Evolution by Natural Selection (1964), p. 1.
The gap between species never has been transgressed, is not bridged today, and never will be bridged.
"Nowhere have the limits of the species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap which also includes sterility."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1960), p. 168.
Darwinian proofs of species evolution are no proofs at all, for each of the proofs (such as the darker color of certain moth subspecies) requires only simple gene reshuffling and no actual DNA changes.
"Neo-Darwinist textbooks on evolution keep citing the same comparatively few examples: industrial melanism [darkened variety of peppered moths], sickle-cell anemia, DDT resistance. All are comparatively minor changes; all involve variations in which a large and obvious selective advantage can be obtained by a single parallel substitution."—*P. Saunders and *M. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable?—And Does it Matter?" in Nature and System (1982), p. 191.
Chesterton said it well:
"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—G.K. Chesterton (1925).
Geneticists still cannot figure out how new species could be produced. The DNA barrier is an impossible one to cross.
"The origin of the genetic basis of species differentiation is an important unsolved problem of evolutionary biology."—*H.L. Carson, "Genetics of Speciation at the Diploid Level," in American Naturalist, 109(965):83-92.
Rather than new species appearing, the truth is that species have disappeared. Since there is no way to produce new ones, the total number in existence keeps shrinking.
"Natural selection not only brings new species into existence—if it does—but also eliminates species, and on a colossal scale. It is calculated that 99 percent of all the species which have ever existed are now extinct. So perhaps it may be more instructive to discover why species vanish than why they appear."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 86.
Only God could make the species.
It took the miraculous to produce the species.
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943, p. 63.
The only acceptable explanation is Creation.
"I think however that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H.J. Lipson, F.R.S.A Physicist Looks at Evolution, in Physics Bulletin 31, 1980, p. 138.
Much more information on this topic will be found in Fossils and Strata.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the next topic in this series:
MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR ONE SPECIES: There are large numbers of different species, yet evolutionists admit it would take a million years to produce just one of them!