Immersed In Red

by Mike Shotwell

  Some leftist scientists cite Bergman’s research as ad hominem (attacking a person’s character) and not related to one’s scientific work; therefore, they claim, it is irrelevant. But it was Darwin’s fourteen thousand letters and his books that chronicled his maladies, along with his concerns about the relevancy and accuracy of his research. When contrasting Darwin’s statement, “The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man,” with Darwin’s thoughts and behavior, it brings into question his overall stability, making it difficult to separate the man from his scientific output.

  * * *

  CHAPTER 15

  THE PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD AND LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

  The fundamental premise underlying Darwin’s theory of evolution was that, through the eons of time, inferior species evolved into superior species through natural selection. The resulting science textbooks have taught evolution through progressive drawings showing fish growing feet, adapting to the land and developing step by step to higher species. Also prevalent are the sequential drawings of lemurs, chimpanzees and gorillas marching upward in stages, eventually to modern man. But a major stumbling block was recognized by Darwin himself, one that has persisted to the present. Darwin asked, “Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”

  In short, in order for the theory of evolution to prevail as Darwin perceived it, transitional examples of evolving macro species must certainly exist. We would fully expect to find fossils of fish with rudimentary feet, and examples of further stages, on their way to becoming mammals. Yet the fossil record, numbering today in the area of one-hundred million identified and cataloged examples in the world’s museums actually show the opposite of Darwin’s theory, namely no evolution. This incredible growing record covers the approximately 1.5 million species (estimates range from 5 to 100 million in total) of all past and present forms of life, with no transitional examples among them.

  Prominent scientists questioning Darwin’s theories: As I have delved into this compelling topic, I have studied numerous compendiums of quotes by scientists regarding the importance of paleontology to evolution. I have chosen to focus on those compiled by Shawn D. Pitman, MD, who has taken efforts to exclude quotes taken out of context. Luminaries in the field who stress the importance of paleontology include Sir Gavin de Beer, director of the British Museum, Yale paleontologist Carl Dunbar, and Pierre-Paul Grasse, chair of Evolutionary Biology at Sorbonne University and past president of the French Academie des Sciences and one of the most eminent French zoologist of the twentieth century. Grasse still believed in Darwinian evolution at some level, but was unsure of the actual mechanism. His affirmative statement about the importance of paleontology is definitive, “Why, because it is the only way of obtaining factual evidence supporting any of the theories proffered … Any other explanation is conjecture.”

  Another Grasse statement speaks to the general consensus on the subject,

  Today [1977] our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution which keeps rapidly unfolding before us … Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms … that is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution.

  Other noted scientists confirming the lack of evidence for transitional forms of species-to-species in fossil history include some of the most important paleontologists and geologists in the field. For example, David M. Raup, geologist, curator and dean of science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which houses the world’s largest fossil repository, who stated,

  A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from low-level textbooks and semi-popular articles… Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved [emphasis added].

  The director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Swedish geneticist, Prof. Heribert Nilsson, also stated, “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.”

  Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, and Director of the American Museum of Natural History, in a letter to Luther D. Sunderland, author of Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and other Problems, stated,

  I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument (for evolution) [emphasis added]. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.

  By any accounting, Patterson is one of the world’s top evolutionists of the past several decades. He has recently called evolution “positively anti-knowledge,” and in another address he called evolution “story-telling.” In a presentation on November 5, 1981, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, Patterson stated,

  It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that’s all we know about it…about eighteen months ago …I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way [emphasis added].

  Mark Ridley, zoologist at Oxford University and a leading writer on evolution stated, “In any case, no real evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation [emphasis added].”

  George Gaylord Simpson was noted by many as the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologists. He was also a confirmed atheist and evolutionist. In his book, Tempo and Mode, he wrote, “The regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is almost a universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”

  Nevertheless, Simpson had other explanatory theories in his defense of evolution theory, one being Darwin’s explanation of the “poorness of the geological record,” and yet another theory, he himself called “controversial and hypothetical” that he named “quantum evolution.” But the fact remains that today, 65 years after Simpson’s work was published, and 156 years after the publication of Origin, no macro-transitional evidence has been found.

  H. S. Lipson, professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK, and author of A Physicist Looks at Evolution wrote, “I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory (evolution) does not stand up at all [emphasis added].”

  More names of prominent scientists who reject the validity of species-tospecies transitions include:

  Michael Ruse, philosopher of science and biology stated, “Darwinian Theory is based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence … For many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements … akin to being a secular religion [emphasis added].”

  Mary Leakey, paleoanthropologist, during an AP interview on October 10, 1996, said, “All of these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense [emphasis added].”

  Niles Eldredge, Ph.D,
geologist, and curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History is quoted by Phillip Johnson in his book, Darwin on Trial, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (gradual adaptive change), all the while knowing that it does not.”

  Charles Darwin himself made a number of statements questioning his own work in light of the failure to produce transitional forms in the fossil record,

  When we descend to detail, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [emphasis added].

  There is undeniable scientific evidence that species do come and go, dinosaurs being a prime example. However, evidence that one species evolves to another has proven hard to come by. Further clouding the theory of transitional or intermediate species is the fossil record from the ancient Cambrian period of 540–500 million BC. Invertebrate fossil species from this geological time period appear fully formed and complex, with no transitional forms preceding them. Some of the species represented include snails, starfishes, jellyfish, reptiles and birds. Additionally, these have been found in locations as diverse as Canada and China.

  Another example appeared in 1938, when a fisherman made a catch of a coelacanth at the mouth of the Chalunna River on the east coast of South Africa. This was the same species of a fossilized fish believed for some time to be extinct for 70 million years. Evolutionists had held it up as the forerunner of amphibians. But with the appearance of this fish and the subsequent capture of many more like it, that glimmer of hopeful proof faded.

  What will be the long-term effect on the science of evolution with regard to the fossil record? Perhaps if contrary investigation was permitted within the hallowed halls of the scientific community without demonizing those who study alternate theories, it might just lead to other fruitful discoveries. What is scientific study, after all, if not an ongoing series of wide-ranging hypothesis and testing? Without the freedom to allow scientific findings to change what we know about the world, we would still believe that the world is flat. One thing is certain: the search for truth in science is stifled when guarded and shaped by a closed society.

  Fakes, frauds and misrepresentations. By the beginning of the twentieth century and even before, the lack of physical evidence to support evolution, particularly within the paleontological record, gave impetus to attempts at filling the gap. These resulting fakes, frauds, and misrepresentations were initially accepted in the rush to prove the theory. The consequence, however, was that many of these were incorporated into school textbooks, and remained there for decades, some into the recent 2000s. The so-called validation of Darwinism was therefore reinforced, along with the underlying ideology of Marxism and atheism.

  Darwin’s photographs and illustrations. In 1872 Darwin published The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. The goal was to show, with the help of photography, that human emotions evolved from some lower animal type. By supposedly showing that all human expressions were shared by the animal kingdom, Darwin claimed proof and further expansion of his theory of evolution. The difficulty with this approach was the revelation that the photographs and attendant illustrations had been manipulated, posed and otherwise “created.”

  As described in Bergman’s book, the use of photography at that time went largely unquestioned, and was seen as an objective medium for showing objects as they really were. Darwin compiled his photos in a number of ways. One marked example was an etching from Expression, entitled “Horror and Agony,” that was copied from a photograph by Paris physiologist Professor Duchenne, who was known to use electrodes to stimulate facial muscles in patients. The subject in the photo was a mental patient enduring just such treatment, although the etching commissioned by Darwin only showed the man’s face without the more disturbing elements.

  Other illustrations included drawings made to look like photographs, with various features highlighted to enhance the facial expressions. Another technique used the layering of photographic negatives to achieve the desired result. Rather than capturing genuine and natural expressions of emotion, Darwin utilized various forms of manipulation to “prove” his point.

  Piltdown Man. One of the most famous examples of a fraud was the Piltdown Man, “discovered” in 1912 by amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson, and Arthur Smith Woodward, curator of the British Museum’s paleontology department. This artifact, reputed to be the skull of a 500,000- to 1-millionyear-old man, caused a sensation around the world. It was hailed as the “missing link” between ape and man for over forty years; clear-cut confirmation of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

  But in 1953, it was determined that the skull was part of an elaborate hoax which cleverly combined a medieval cranium, and a stained chimpanzee jaw. It was revealed that Dawson had actually created some thirty-eight other fakes over the years leading up to this incident, hoping to gain acceptance into the scientific hierarchy, and ultimately the prestigious Royal Society.

  Fully two generations of students absorbed the “scientific” knowledge that came with this fraud. Although I was only eleven years old when the truth came out, Piltdown Man was nonetheless part of the “settled science” of my mother and Orville’s youth, and had already fed into the ideology that they passed onto me.

  Haeckel’s embryos. Earnst Haeckel (1834–1919) was a serious proponent of Darwin who advanced his theory of evolution throughout Germany. From the springboard of Darwinism, Haeckel developed further theories of the evolution and development of species, writing extensively on the subject and later becoming a professor of comparative anatomy. He gained notoriety for his creation of illustrations and woodblock prints of vertebrate embryos, purporting to show the preponderance of original similarity of species that then diverged into various animal forms. Over time these became widely accepted as evidence for evolution, and were included in biology textbooks both in the US and abroad, remaining in some as late as 2014. His theories were frequently debated during his lifetime and were eventually discredited.

  The most recent investigation in regard to Haeckel was performed by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, and his team, in the late 1990s. Richardson’s work documented embryo growth in nine species, following their developmental stages as laid out by Haeckel. The results were that none of the embryos and their resulting growth looked the same at the same state of development as indicated in Haeckel’s famous woodblock prints. In fact, the differences were quite remarkable. In a 1997 interview with The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated, “This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud … they are fakes.”

  Haeckel was also a key figure in “scientific racism,” believing in the superiority of some races over others, as well as holding views on the elimination of society’s “lesser” individuals, in line with the emerging study of eugenics. His ideas and concepts bolstered the future Nazi and communist regimes that would follow.

  In the end, although Haeckel’s views regarding embryo development and evolution no longer carry authority, the inclusion of his illustrations over generations has had the effect of persuading a vast audience of an implied legitimacy.

  Lucy. The discovery of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) in 1974 in Northern Ethiopia by Dr. Donald Johanson and Tom Gray, while not a fraud or a fake, can be placed in the column of serious misrepresentations. Lucy was destined to become one of the most famous (and most controversial) finds of all time. National Geographic’s September 20, 2006 issue hailed her (a 40 percent partial skeleton) as “Perhaps the world’s most famous early human ancestor.” Johanson was more succinct, “These new hominid fossils … constitute the earliest definitive evidence of the family Hominidae,” the upright walking “missing link” that was so sought after. And it resulted in instantly making Johanson’s career.

  In the exuberant aftermath of the discovery, countless magazine articles were written, and exhibits were rapidl
y erected at multiple venues such as the New York Museum of Natural History, the American Museum of Natural Sciences, the Museum of Man in San Diego, the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo, the University of New Mexico, Michigan State University and the huge $17.1 million-dollar ode to evolution at the St. Louis Zoo (since removed), inclusive of an animatronic figure of Darwin and an exhibition of a contemplative Lucy looking more human than ape, and most provocatively, walking upright with modern hands and feet. A traveling exhibit showed Lucy in the same manner.

  However, as prominent researchers gained access to the fossils (or replicas thereof), Lucy’s “hominid” status began to be seriously questioned. Some of the notable aspects included her gorilla-like appearance, small brain size, V-shaped jaw, large teeth, conical chest, undeveloped locking mechanism in her knees (related to walking upright), the microwear on her teeth which indicated she was a fruit eater, and wrist bones that were locked and stable, indicating a knuckle-walker. The shape and size of the pelvis, as reconstructed from the fractured pieces, even suggested that “she” was possibly a “he.” Lucy was, in fact, very similar to a modern chimpanzee, a separate species from that of humans.

  As time passed, with more contradictory evidence coming to light, Johanson, in his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, written with Maitland A. Edey, admitted to having bias.

  There is no such thing as a lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it … If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age … logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain [emphasis added].