The Case of the Missing Link (part 2) By Rex Banks In our previous article we pointed out that the systematic gaps in the fossil record constitute a


The Case of the Missing Link (part 2)

By Rex Banks

Enduring Words Logo

In our previous article we pointed out that the systematic gaps in the fossil record constitute a serious problem for evolutionists. In particular we drew attention to the fact that the fossil record provides no evidence that the Cambrian animals were derived from previous ancestral forms, or that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates. We pick up there.


Evolutionists assume that fish gave rise to amphibians and the fossil record has been diligently searched for the transitional forms linking these two. As yet no such series has been found. There is a great gap between Rhipidistan Crossopterigian fish and Amphibians (of the genus Ichthyostega) which allegedly descended from this fish. This gap must have spanned millions of years and involved great numbers of in-between forms – e.g. a creature with fins partly converted into feet.

However Duane T. Gish states, “There is a basic difference in anatomy between all fishes and all amphibians not bridged by transitional forms. In all fishes living or fossil, the pelvic bones are small and loosely embedded in muscle. There is no connection between the pelvic bones and the vertebral column… In tetrapod amphibians, living or fossil, on the other hand, the pelvic bones are very large and firmly attached to the vertebral column. This is the type of anatomy an animal must have to walk. It is the type of anatomy found in all living or fossil tetrapod amphibians, but which is absent in all living or fossil fishes” (“There Are No Transitional Forms – The Fossils Say No! – p. 80).

Until the late 1930s a fish called Coelancanth was held to be such an in-between form since it was supposed to have certain limb-like characteristics on its fins. To the embarrassment of evolutionists, this type of fish, supposedly extinct for 70 million years, was discovered alive and well off the coast of Africa.


It is at these boundaries that the strongest claims for transitional forms have been advanced. This is to be expected since it is just these classes that are most similar in skeletal features, parts that are preserved in the fossil record. While there are very real differences between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals, these differences may not show up in the fossil record since they are most evident in the “soft parts” of the body.

However, Dr Henry Morris comments, “Of much more significance is the fact that each of the various orders of amphibians, reptiles and mammals appears suddenly in the fossil record, without incipient forms leading up to it and without transitional forms between it and any other order” (Scientific Creationism, pp. 83-84).


In view of the innumerable transitional forms which would have been involved in the transition from a non-flying to flying animal, this part of fossil record should provide much evidence for the theory of evolution. Where then are the fossilised remains of creatures with half-scales turning into feathers, or half-forelimbs turning into wings ? Where are the forms intermediate between flying reptiles and non-winged reptilian ancestors?

Until recently the “Reptile Like” bird Archaeopteryx was proudly displayed by many evolutionists as a link between reptile and bird. However, it was announced in 1977 that a fossil of a true bird had been found in rocks of the same geological period as Archaeopteryx! Clearly this creature cannot be the ancestor of birds if the two were contemporaries. For some time now, creationists have predicted that the glaring inadequacies of the fossil record will need to be explained away by evolutionists, and the new model of evolution called punctuated equilibrium (See Newsweek, Dec 7, 1981) is an attempt to do just that. Now, while this new theory sounds like a fairy tale, it is the best that the evolutionist can do with a fossil record which obstinately refuses to yield the results which they need. How tragic that man will go to any lengths to defend the indefensible, rather that to accept the simple truth – “In the beginning God created…”

View the Original Article

The Link Is Still Missing!

Part 1 and 2 of the above article were published in 1982. Even in the 33 years that have passed since, scientists are still searching and still scratching their heads. Since many of them so vehemently oppose Jehovah God as the Designer, they continue to search in vain for the "missing links" that do not exist. Consider some quotes from Charles Darwin himself, written in The Origin of Species over 150 years ago.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection."

"I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed at the commencement of the tertiary series. This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species."

"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

Follow the evidence. Where does it lead? "In the beginning God created..."

Lance Mosher

email facebook google_plus wordpress youtube