googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: The Myth of Sea-to-Land Evolution

Sunday, May 4, 2008

The Myth of Sea-to-Land Evolution

OK, so you know that I’ve long since given up on evolution. After looking into it for a few years, I realize the whole idea is untenable. But apparently even I wasn’t aware how tenuous the entire theory is. I’ve known that the so called FACT of evolution is more story telling than science but I came across an article recently that highlights exactly how little science is involved.

Haven’t you been told all your life that life arose in the sea and then progressed on to land? This “primordial soup” is the foundation of evolution: life began in the ancient oceans, became complex marine animals, then clawed onto dry land to eventually become amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and man. Right? Since it is repeated so often, I would think this fantastic account of fish to land must surely be one of the most documented facts in all of science. Boy was I wrong.

I read an article in (a source not at all friendly to creationists), called: New Fossil: Link Between Fish and Land Animals? I encourage you to click the link and read the entire article for yourself but I wanted to highlight a few quotes taken from the article. The first paragraph begins:
“What creature first crawled out of the prehistoric swamps to conquer the land? The question has long puzzled paleontologists because the transitional species seems to have lived during a mysterious 30-million-year gap in the fossil record called Romer's Gap.”

Wait a cotton picking minute!! Are they saying sea-to-land evolution supposedly occurred during a gap in the fossil record? This isn’t just one person’s opinion either because they’ve even named the gap. That can’t be right! But read on:

“The late Devonian period has is a rich fossil history of lobed fishes.”
OK, so we have a “rich fossil history of lobed fishes.” I guess that means a lot of fish fossils.
"After the Devonian the fossil record disappears, at least for a while—20-30 million years. Only three informative fossils dating back to this time have been found."
I about fell out of my chair. Only three informative fossils? Are you kidding me? We’ve reconstructed the entire fish-to-land story based on just three fossils!! This must be a joke. But read on:
“When the fossil record resumes roughly 25 million years later, there was already a tremendous variety of tetrapod landforms. Ancestors of modern mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds had already evolved and were diverging along distinct branches.”
I guess it’s not a joke. They have fish - next they have tetrapod landforms. In the interim we have three fossils - I guess now we have four with the new one discussed in the article. But of these four, only the most recent one is considered transistional.

There you have it, folks. The entire fish-to-land scenario of evolution was contrived before a single transitional fossil was found. Even now, we have exactly ONE fossil to support the entire, stinking premise.

Let me remind you of these quotes by Darwin (from 2 different chapters):

“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?”

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. 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.”

Darwin was concerned about the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records – as well he should be. I guess the lack of sea-to-land transitional forms makes some modern scientists a little nervous too. Again, we have this candid quote from the article:
‘"We lack a focus from which all modern tetrapods evolved," said Robert Carroll, professor of zoology, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Montreal's McGill University. "Romer's Gap is a 30-million-year black box that, frankly, keeps me up at night."

Clack's latest find may help scientists sleep better.’
I can almost hear a collective sigh of relief. They’ve invented an elaborate theory about sea-to-land forms and have been searching desperately to find even ONE example. Now they’ve finally found something they can pin the "transitional" label on. This critter is no more a sea-to-land transition than the man in the moon.

If you give me a hammer, I can drive a square peg into a round hole. I guess they can also make a previously unknown species look like a transitional form. Evolution is looking pretty bad; I just didn’t realize how bad!


NP said...

So help me try to understand the cognitive dissonance here.

On the one hand, you don't believe that the fossil layers are indicative of geological time and that they are millions of years old.

On the other hand, when it is convenient for you, you talk of gaps in the fossil record.

So which is it?

Bear in mind that the fact that evolution occured is not in doubt. What troubles paleontologists is that there isn't enough detail about the early evolution of land-based tetrapods. Nonetheless, even given the limited information from the fossil record we observe that there is a temporal progression from sea-to-land organisms - even though it appears abrupt. One could posit that there was a magic act of special creation that occured during this 30 million year period, but it is a far less parsimonious explanation.

Furthermore, transitional forms between fish and amphibians have emerged even prior to Romer's gap. Your article is from 2002, before Tiktaalik - which is estimated to have lived around 375 million years ago - was found.

Frankly, your claim that the fossil evidence has been "contrived" is entirely baseless. To take the example of Tiktaalik, it has features that are distinctly fishlike, and some features which are distinctly amphibianlike. Not exactly a square peg. said...

Just out of curiousity, I am wondering why you believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I can understand why you do not believe in evolution - I do not believe in it either - and I am glad that you take the Genesis account of creation literally, as it should be taken. However, even a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis allows for an earth millions of years old. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the earth, and verse 2 says it was covered with water and in darkness, basically in a desolate state. But there is evidence elsewhere in the Bible that suggests that God did not create the earth in verse 1 in the condition found in verse 2. This suggests that an event occurred that destroyed the surface of the earth, and the six days, which happened about 6,000 years ago, was a renewing of the face of the earth, repairing the damage, and restoring life on the earth.

There could have been a whole age before the six days during which the fossil record was laid down.

RKBentley said...


Thanks for visiting my blog.

Are you asking for scientific or Scriptural evidence? Scientifically speaking, there really is NO evidence for a historical person named Adam or an earth exactly 6,000 years old. But there is evidence against an earth billions of years old. For example, see my blog, “Watching an old-earth crumble.” Of course there are many other arguments that I’ll post as time permits.

Scripturally speaking, I believe a young earth is the most obvious reading of the Bible. Consider just these three passages:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:11

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Mark 10:6

Luke 3:23-38, which is a list of all the generations between Adam and Jesus.

So we have sort of a logical argument: 1) The universe was created in 6 days, 2) Man was created at the beginning of creation (not millions of years later) 3) We have an exhaustive list of about 75 generations of all the generations between Adam and Jesus. Even if there are some names missing from the list, there are not enough generations to account for millions or billions of years. All together, this suggests an earth that is only thousands of years old.

The creation scenario you describe has a couple of variations. Some call it the ruin-reconstruction theory; others call it the Gap theory. I intend to write about these sometime. As a brother (or sister?) in Christ, I’m not going to insist you believe in a young earth. However, the idea of molecules to man evolution is NOT compatible with the Bible. I think you agree.

Thanks again for visiting my blog. Please come back. Have a great day and God bless.

ad said...

Hi RK, thought I would drop in a check it out! My, you have been busy! Not a bad site, keep up the good work.
A quick note for np - RK was not saying that he believes the fossil record as proposed by evolutionists, but quite the opposite, as stated in his op. He was pointing out that there are gaps in the record as it stands, do you deny this? I see "cognitive dissonance" in your critique of RK's reasoning though.
Tiktaalik is not as solid a transitional as you would like to think - it is actually a "mosaic", much like the Platypus of today. Tiktaalik's fin was not attached to its skeleton so it would not have been used for actual weightbearing as it would not have been strong enough.

Doppelganger said...

"After looking into it for a few years, I realize the whole idea is untenable."

A few years of 'looking into it.' Sure, that is all it takes.

I looked into the bible for a few years, and found it to be a laughable collection of borrowed fairy tales.

So who are you to disagree with my conclusion?

RKBentley said...


Thanks for visiting my blog. I realize that feedback to a blog is necessarily brief but do you think you could at least include ONE example to prove your point?

I made the quote you cited in a blog where I went on to show the abysmal lack of sea-to-land transitional forms. And this is after a couple of dozen other blogs where I show how evolution doesn't work.

If I had posted a blog that said, "Evolution is a fairytale" and nothing else, you might have a point. What you've done here is known as making a "bald assertion."

Thanks again for visiting my blog. Please come back and invite your friends.

God Bless!!

NP said...


A quick note for np - RK was not saying that he believes the fossil record as proposed by evolutionists, but quite the opposite, as stated in his op. He was pointing out that there are gaps in the record as it stands, do you deny this?

I agree there are gaps in the record, for the simple reason that fossilization is a rare event that requires specific conditions to occur. Most organisms will rot away or be consumed by scavengers when they die.

However, how does a creationist who doesn't believe in the temporal progression of the fossil record see "gaps" in it? Firstly, RK believes that the earth is only a few thousands of years old, and that the fossils were formed by the Flood. In that scenario, the order in the fossil record would NOT be based on time. So what "gaps" is he speaking of? He can't have his cake and eat it too.

Tiktaalik is not as solid a transitional as you would like to think - it is actually a "mosaic", much like the Platypus of today.

Interesting that you should mention the Platypus. It is in fact an excellent example of evolution; a recent paper in Nature has reported the sequencing of the entire Platypus genome, which allows us to see the molecular evidence for common ancestry between the Platypus and other extant mammals. The molecular evidence corroborates the currently accepted phylogeny of the playtpus, whose ancestors are likely to have split from the rest of the mammalian lineage quite early on and retained many reptilian characteristics.

The platypus in fact has many transitional features. While it is oviparous, i.e. lays eggs rather giving birth, it's babies are relatively underdeveloped when they hatch, and require lactation (a mammalian trait) in order to sustain their development. The interesting thing is that while the platypus is capable of lactation, it has no teats, and milk is released through pores in a specialized region of the skin instead.

Tiktaalik's fin was not attached to its skeleton so it would not have been used for actual weightbearing as it would not have been strong enough.

What's your citation for this claim?

Tiktaalik has many features that are "transitional" between fish and tetrapods e.g. position of its eyes on its skull, a functional wrist joint, a movable neck, etc.