Matthew Nalls

Published on the 24^th of November, 1859, the study entitled On the Origin of Species gave name to a growing movement known as “evolutionism.” Written by scientist Charles Robert Darwin, an English geologist and naturalist, the study revealed what was interpreted as reasons for the differing traits and characteristics in animals. Essentially, the study “proved” the origin of species, and the origins of the differences in species, came through the process of evolution. Charles Darwin utilized several key arguments during this study. One of these arguments revolved around paleontology and the study of fossils. Darwin boldly claims paleontology (the study of ancient life, whether such life be animal, plant, or bacterial) amply supports the theory of evolution. Darwin explains: “On the other hand, all the chief laws of paleontology plainly proclaim, as it seems to me, that species have been produced by ordinary generation: old forms having been supplanted by new and improved forms of life, produced by the laws of variation still acting around us, and preserved by Natural Selection.”

Darwin also goes on to state through paleontology “[w]e can understand how it is that all the forms of life, ancient and recent, make together one grand system: for all are connected by generation…. Why ancient and extinct forms often tend to fill up gaps between existing forms.” Through recent discoveries in the realm of paleontology, this assumption made by Darwin has become absurd.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin explains there are some difficulties with his theory regarding paleontology. Through Natural Selection, it is implied each species is connected to a parent species. Consequently, implied by this idea is the fact there must have been an innumerable mass of links between extinct, ancient, and living species, Darwin acknowledges this implied truth, stating, “So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” Unfortunately for Darwin, the major animal groups of the time appeared complete in what were the earliest fossil records known in the 1800s. This layer of fossil was known as the Cambrian, also known as the Silurian. The Cambrian left no room for his vast amount of “intermediate and transitional links.” To counter this, Darwin claims his transitional links may have existed in strata deeper below the Cambrian stratum. As the Cambrian stratum is the lowest known fossil level at the time, nothing deeper than it is known. Darwin’s claims have no evidence, yet also have no contrary evidence, either. Darwin interestingly admits that, as a result of no evidence supporting his claim, “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

Quickly covering his tracks after such an admission, Darwin argues both Pre-Cambrian fossils and Cambrian were broken apart through sedimentary forces, and attacks the imperfections in the geological records of the time. First, Darwin claims shells and bones, specifically in the ocean, are destroyed constantly as opposed to the view such fossils were safe under oceanic sediment. Second, Darwin undertakes an assault on the geological record, and the notion only a small part of the glove has been “geologically explored with care.” This is where Darwin’s arguments have become absurd in light of recent discovery. Regarding the destruction of Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian soft-bodies, Darwin argues:

No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Shells and bones will decay and disappear when left on the bottom of the sea, where sediment is not accumulating. I believe we are continually taking a most erroneous view, when we tacitly admit to ourselves that sediment is being deposited over nearly the whole bed of the sea, at a rate sufficiently quick to embed and preserve fossil remains…. The remains which do become embedded…will when the beds are upraised be dissolved. I suspect that but few of the very many animals which live on the beach between high and low watermark are preserved.

Albeit in Darwin’s time, the earliest known world was the Cambrian era, Pre-Cambrian discoveries have been made. Encyclopaedia Britannica records:

The earliest evidence for the advent of life includes Precambrian microfossils that resemble algae, cysts of flagellates, tubes interpreted to be the remains of filamentous organisms, and stromatolites (sheetlike mats precipitated by communities of microorganisms). In the late Precambrian, the first multicellular organisms evolved, and sexual division developed. By the end of the Precambrian, conditions were set for the explosion of life that took place at the start of the Phanerozoic Eon (Windley).

Such Pre-Cambrian discoveries disprove Darwin’s first notion soft-bodied organisms would be instantly destroyed during the Pre-Cambrian epoch, whether covered in sediment or not. Flagellates, algae, and the remains of tubes are all parts of soft body creatures. The same must be assumed for the Cambrian era as well.

Regarding his second notion of the geographical record, Darwin claims the record is not nearly as extensive as necessary. He claims, “Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care…the number of both specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away….” Interestingly, Darwin is technically right. There is a problem for him concerning the geographical record; however, the amount of fossils unearthed was never the problem. Scientists have discovered a point of massive increase in the amount of unearthed fossils at a point in the Cambrian strata. This increase is known as the “Cambrian explosion.”

The problem itself is the fact without any genealogical records or DNA, linking extinct species to others is impossible. On top of this, intermediate species are still missing even in the Cambrian strata. Although there has been a recorded explosion in fossils, little to none of these fossils provide a visual representation of the process of evolution or show a direct correlation between living and extinct creatures. David B. Kitts, the Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum, explains, “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…” (Journey, par. 2). N. Heribert Nilsson, an evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, adds:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled (Journey, par. 3).

From these findings, although Darwin is correct in the idea there is a problem with the geological record, he believes there is a problem for the wrong reason. This different problem has severely injured Darwin’s claims. With a Cambrian fossil explosion, yet no room left for intermediate fossils to be discovered in completed animal phyla, there is subsequently no room for Darwin’s notions either. Intermediate fossils would not conform to completed phyla, and none have yet to be discovered.

Based upon discoveries made after the publishing of Charles Darwin’s study The Origin of Species, it is clear Darwin’s fossils are not indicators of the origin of species. Contrary to the belief of Darwin, Pre-Cambrian fossils do exist, including soft-bodies. Darwin’s intermediate fossils are not present in this stratum. Contrary to his beliefs again, his intermediate fossils are not present in the Cambrian stratum either. Although there was a fossil explosion, Darwin’s intermediate fossils were not a part of the party. Paleontology, as explained previously by David B. Kitts, offers no evidence for evolutionists seeking answers from paleontology. Rather, paleontology illustrates the lack of evidence of evolution, through being unable to locate Darwin’s “M.I.A” intermediate fossils.

Works Cited

Sunderland, Luther. “Problems with The Fossil Record,” The Journey. 3 March 2015. Web.

Windley, Brian F. “Pre-Cambrian Time.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 3 March 2015. Web.