Harun Yahya

The invalidity of the claim that ''the fact that species may change little or not at all does not disprove evolution''

This is what Darwinists say when faced with fossil evidence that has never undergone any change. Such glorious fossil evidence so demolished evolution that Darwinists think they can remedy the situation and close the subject by claiming that some species have never changed.

The fact is, however, that this applies to all the more than 300 million fossils that have been unearthed. So how can Darwinists account for that?

-          It is of course true that species do not change. But the idea that some species do not change, while others do, is a huge deception. In order to be able to make such a claim, one would have to produce FOSSILS OF FICTITIOUS SPECIES THAT DO SUPPOSEDLY CHANGE. But that never happens, because there are no such fossils.

-          The supporters of the theory of evolution, which should be totally based on fossil evidence, have been unable to produce a single transitional fossil for 150 years. The sole reason for this, of course, is that no such fossil exists.

-          Darwinism is based on the claim that all species change directly from the primitive to the more advanced. That is the essential claim of the fraud that is evolution. That being the case, there should be millions or even billions of fossils exhibiting such change. But IF THERE IS NOT A SINGLE ONE, THAT MEANS THAT NO SUCH CHANGE EVER HAPPENED.

-          Paleontology is another of the main branches of science, after molecular biology and genetics, that completely refutes evolution. That has in fact been the case ever since Darwin’s time. Darwin was uneasy at the way that living things were perfect and fully formed and was concerned that the fossil record would not produce any transitional forms.

Charles Darwin:

WHY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, DO WE NOT EVERYWHERE SEE INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? WHY IS NOT ALL NATURE IN CONFUSION INSTEAD OF THE SPECIES BEING, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED? . . . But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM EMBEDDED in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? . . . WHY THEN IS NOT every geological formation and every stratum FULL OF SUCH INTERMEDIATE LINKS? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and THIS, PERHAPS, IS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND GRAVEST OBJECTION WHICH CAN BE URGED AGAINST MY THEORY. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 172, 280)

-          The position today is even worse than that in Darwin’s own time. The number of fossils discovered is rising by the day and has currently passed the 300 million mark. BUT NOT ONE IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.

-          The completeness, regularity, perfection and flawlessness in these 300 million fossils have routed Darwinists. Extinct life forms and others that have survived for millions of years demonstrate that perfection and complexity time and time again.

The following point is of the greatest importance: NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL SHOWS THAT LIFE FORMS CHANGE. The idea that some life forms may have remained unchanged is therefore a cheap way out and deception. ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED. Darwinism has suffered a total rout in the face of this gigantic reality.

Desktop View