Evolution in Crisis – Part III

In this third edition of Evolution in Crisis, I examine the lack of indisputable fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Much more detail about this, as well as the mounting evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, is contained in my book, No More Monkey Business: Evolution in Crisis, which is available FOR FREE as an eBook, for the whole month of February 2023. You can download it from this link:https://BookHip.com/RQHATGZ

If evolution is true – if all species gradually evolved over millions of years through long, slow stages of increasingly complex transitional forms (intermediate species) – the earth should be overflowing with fossils demonstrating this. The rocks and soil should be teeming with transitional forms of all the various stages between emerging species. We should be able to find abundant fossil evidence of transitional forms between reptiles and birds, primates and humans, and all the various species that have supposedly evolved. There should be millions of these fossils all over the earth! Yet the fact remains that after centuries of archaeological excavation, not one single incontestable transitional form has been uncovered.

In terms of supposed human evolution, the modern theory of human evolution proposes that humans evolved through an ape-like ancestor, which is shared by modern apes and monkeys. This gradual emergence of humans from the animal kingdom is supposed to have taken place over hundreds of thousands of years, with vast numbers of incrementally humanoid creatures roaming the earth and leaving behind clear evidence of their existence. The fossil record should be replete with the record of their sojourn upon the earth. But it is not. Not a single such unequivocal and uncontested pre-human transitional form has been discovered.

This is not for lack of trying, however! During the 20th century, over-enthusiastic evolutionists proposed a number of such “missing links”. These supposed primate-human transitional forms were announced with great fanfare and were broadcast enthusiastically to the general public as verifiable proof of Darwin’s theory. For several decades, discovery after discovery was announced; Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man. These and other “missing links” found their way into science textbooks around the world and were taught in schools and universities as indisputable facts. Several generations of people grew up with the names of these transitional forms in their heads and on their tongues. Evolution had been proven! Darwin had been vindicated!

 Not so. Every one of these so-called “missing links” has now been completely discredited. They have all been proven to be either hoaxes by fanatical evolutionists or false leads based upon very bad science. Here are some examples:

>>> Hesperopithecus was believed to be one such missing link, but in the late 1960s, Henry Fairfield Osborn’s field expedition proved beyond doubt that Hesperopithecus was the remains of a modern-day wild pig![i]

>>>  Java Man was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois. Yet Dubois also discovered fully human skulls at the same level as Java Man, and concealed them for 30 years. Before he died, he confessed this omission of facts, and admitted that Java Man was really a gibbon! Furthermore, Frau Selenka’s expedition, in 1907, discovered that the Java Man site was a volcanic area and could not be more than 5000 years old.[ii]

>>> Piltdown Man, discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson, was chemically analysed in 1953 by Prof. Kenneth Oakley, who proved conclusively that the skull was that of a modern human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The bones had been chemically treated by Dawson to make them appear old, and the teeth had been filed down to resemble human teeth. Charles Dawson was disgraced by the eventual unveiling of this fraud, which had fooled the scientific world for 40 years.[iii]

>>> Neanderthal Man, discovered in 1848 at Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar, was declared by evolutionists at the time to be THE missing link. In 1939, it was proved, by Prof. Sergio Sergi, that Neanderthal Man had walked erect, and not on all fours as evolutionists had previously believed. Then, in 1947, a Neanderthal Man was discovered to have lived in a cave AFTER modern man had inhabited it. Neanderthal Man is now conceded to have been simply a normal variation of modern humans.[iv]

>>> Australopithecus Ramidus was hailed, in 1994, to be an indisputable primate-human transitional form. Scientists have now unearthed a nearly completed skeleton of the same creature and have had to re-classify it as Ardipithecus Ramidus – a modern day monkey.[v]

>>> “Lucy” (an Australopithecine) is the latest supposed missing link hailed by evolutionists. However, living specimens of this creature have been discovered in the jungles of Sumatra. The creature, known as Orang Pendek, is simply another variety of the Orang monkey species, and not, as we were originally told, an ancient ancestor of homo sapiens. The well-known French science journal, “Science et Vie”, admitted this fact in its February 1999 issue with the headline, “Adieu Lucy” (Farewell Lucy), and published the clear statement that Lucy could no longer be considered an ancestor of modern humans.[vi]

The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC is the premier museum in America, and is colloquially considered to be the “head office” of evolution. It used to have an exhibit called “Origin Of Life: Apes to Man”, which featured impressive representations of the various transitional ape-man forms. As a result of the discrediting of all supposed pre-human transitional forms, the display was eventually closed down in the 1980s, and a sign was placed outside it, with the announcement:

A lot has happened since this exhibit opened in 1974. The science of human evolution is a fast-changing field. Much of the material here is now out of date. We are developing a new exhibit based on the latest findings.”[vii]

In 2010, the museum opened a new display, “The Hall of Human Origins”, which features a progression of skulls supposedly demonstrating evolutionary development over time.

There are two very disappointing things about this exhibit:

Firstly, the display features Neanderthal man, homo-habilis and homo-erectus as supposedly pre-human and early-human transitional forms, yet most palaeontologists regard these as being normal variations of modern humans.[viii] Dr. Malcolm Bowden, in his article, “Homo-erectus – A Fabricated Class of Ape Men”, comments:

ALL skulls can be identified as being either ape or [modern] human. There are NO other classes, for they are all the imaginings of the evolutionary palaeo-anthropologists who insist on concocting a string of links between man and apes.[ix]

Secondly, the current evolutionary method of classifying skulls as being pre-human is completely superficial and arbitrary. The skulls in the display that are classified by evolutionists as being transitional pre-human or early-human forms (such as homo-habilis and homo-erectus) are assigned those categorisations based solely upon their appearance. Key characteristics for such classification include prominent brow ridges, flat or receding forehead, thick skull and a long, low vaulted cranium. Yet, as Dr. Peter Line explains, in his article, “Fossil Evidence Against Alleged Ape-Men”:

“A major problem for evolutionists is that all of the above-mentioned features, which supposedly differentiate erectus from modern humans, also occur in modern humans.”[x]

Many palaeontologists such as Dr. Line argue that modern human skulls display a wide range of shapes and sizes, and that the evolutionary classification system based upon skull appearance is completely without scientific basis. Dr. Line provides numerous examples of modern human skulls which have been uncovered that display exactly the same features as skulls of supposedly pre-humans. The picture below, published by Dr Line,[xi] is the skull of a person who died in the late 1800s in Broken Hill.

Note the prominent brow ridges, sloping forehead and flat skull. If this skull had been uncovered in an archaeological dig elsewhere in the world, it would undoubtedly have been classified as a pre-human transitional form. Yet it is the skull of a modern human who lived in the 1800s!

Compared to this skull, consider the two skulls below. The one on the left is a Neanderthal (supposedly 400,000 years old) and the one on the right is a Homo-habilis (supposedly 2 million years old). Compared to these two supposedly ancient skulls, the Australian skull, above, appears even more ancient, with much more prominent brow ridges and a flatter forehead and skull!

The evolutionary classification of skulls, based on morphological characteristics (supposed changes in appearance over time) is, quite simply, farcical. Dr. Stephen Molnar, in his book, “Races, Types and Ethnic Groups”, documents size variations in present-day human skulls of up to 2,200 cm3, and also provides evidence of all the various skull shapes and characteristics that are usually attributed to ancient pre-humans as still being prevalent within the human population today.[xii]


The result, in recent years, of more rigorous examination of archaeological evidence, has been the repudiation of all previously held transitional forms. There remains today not one single, uncontested transitional form as evidence for evolution between any species; fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds.

For example, Archaeopteryx was, for decades, widely regarded as the quintessential transitional form between reptiles and birds. As in the case of the supposed ape-human transitional forms, it found its way into science textbooks around the world and was taught to generations of students as archaeological proof of evolution. More thorough investigation in recent decades, however, has totally discredited Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. It is now known to be a normal variation of a modern bird.

Commenting on the demise of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, Dr. Stanley A. Rice, in his highly regarded “Encyclopedia of Evolution”, states;

“Modern birds are not the descendants of Archaeopteryx, which has proved to be an evolutionary dead end. Birds diversified well before Archaeopteryx.”[xiii]

Similarly, the Berkeley University website states;

“It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles. However, its feathers, wings, furcula (“wishbone”) and reduced fingers are all now acknowledged as being characteristics of some modern birds.”[xiv]

In 1999, Colin Patterson, one of the world’s leading evolutionary palaeontologists, based at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote the landmark book, “Evolution”. In it he failed to mention a SINGLE evolutionary transitional form. When a Christian scientist, Luther D. Sunderland, wrote and asked why he had failed to mention any transitional forms, Patterson wrote back, saying,

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evidence of evolutionary transitional forms. If I knew of any (either fossil or living) I would certainly have included them in my book. I’ll lay it on the line – there is NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL [emphasis mine] for which there is a watertight argument.”[xv]

This now famous quote has severely embarrassed evolutionists, and Patterson, under pressure from the atheist movement, has subsequently tried to qualify his original comment.

If evolution was true, we should expect to find MILLIONS of transitional forms all over the earth. Yet there is not one such transitional fossil! As Prof. E.H. Andrews states,

“The fossil record now constitutes a severe embarrassment to the theory of evolution.”[xvi]

Dr. Roberto Fondi, Professor of Palaeontology at the University of Seaella, Italy comments;

“There remains today not ONE SINGLE transitional link between any two species. The theory of evolution is not supported by palaeontology.”[xvii]

In this sense, nothing has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory. The absence of transitional intermediaries was deeply troubling even to Darwin’s loyal supporters, such as T. H. Huxley, who repeatedly warned Darwin in private that his theory did not match the evidence.[xviii] Even Darwin himself was perplexed by the complete absence of transitional forms. Commenting on this his “On The Origin of Species”, he wrote;

“As, by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the earth’s crust? … Why, if species have descended from other species by insensible 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 [in the fossil record].”[xix]

In a further admission, Darwin states;

“The distinctiveness of specific forms and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”[xx]

The original explanation by Darwin and his contemporaries for this perplexing absence of transitional forms was that there were still undiscovered gaps in the fossil record. According to this explanation, the problem lay not in the theory itself, but in our limited discovery of the fossil record. Darwin refers to this explanation when he states;

“We have seen that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views.”[xxi]

This convenient explanation must have had a hollow ring to it, even as it was proposed. What are the chances that palaeontologists failed to find ANY single example of ALL the transitional forms between ALL the stages of development of ALL the species? What kind of statistically improbable bad lack has led palaeontologists to miss the millions of transitional fossils around the world, and to only find fossils of fully developed species?

After a century and a half of further exploration of the fossil record, this enormous gap in the fossil record persists. Modern palaeontologists are reaching the conclusion that the fossil record is complete as it stands, and that, if evolution is true, some other explanation is required. Dr. E.C. Olson states;

“Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors. This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory theory of evolution must take this into consideration and provide an explanation.”[xxii]

Surely the most logical explanation for the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record is that they never existed in the first place and that evolution did not occur. How can science persist in filling the evolutionary gaps with imaginary animals when there is not the slightest physical evidence for their existence?


[i]Myths & Miracles” by David C. C. Watson. Distributed by Creation Science Foundation

[ii] IBID.

[iii] IBID

[iv] IBID

[v] https://australianmuseum.net.au/ardipithecus-ramidus

[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALucy_(Australopithecus)

[vii] Cited by Ken Ham, https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/the-wrong-way-round/

[viii] https://creation.com/australopithecus-and-homo-habilis

[ix] Malcolm Bowden, Homo-erectus – Fabricated Class of Ape-Men, Creation Science technical Journal, Vol 3, 1988, pp.152-153

[x] Peter Line, “Fossil evidence for alleged apemen— Part 1: the genus Homo”, p.27, on https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_22-32.pdf

[xi] IBID

[xii] Molnar, S., Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, Prentice-Hall Inc., NJ, p. 57, 1975;

[xiii] Stanley A. Rice, “Encyclopedia of Evolution”, 2007, p.400

[xiv] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

[xv] Luther Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma”, Master Books, 1998, pp.101-102

[xvi] Quoted in “Evolution; The Lie”, Ken Ham, Creation Science Foundation, 2007

[xvii] Roberto Fondi, “After Darwin; Evolutionary Criticism”, 1980, p. 127

[xviii] Phillip E. Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”, Regnery Gateway Publishing, 1991, p.34

[xix] Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species”, Chapter 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

[xx] IBID, Chapter 9, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

[xxi] Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species”, New York, New American Library, 1958, p.316.

[xxii] E.C. Olson, “The Evolution of Life”, New York, Mentor Books, 1966, 165, p.94