SHOULD BE MORE SPECIES—According to evolutionary theory, a massive number of species changes had to occur in ancient times, but we do not find evidence of this in the rocks. In order for one species to change into another, we should find large numbers of transitional species, partway between one species and another. But this is not found. A leading paleontologist explains: "There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals known . . In spite of this large quantity of information, it is but a tiny fraction of the diversity that [according to the theory] actually lived in the past. There are well over a million species living today and . . [it is] possible to predict how many species ought to be in our fossil record. That number is at least 100 times the number we have found."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22.
(1) The fossil evidence does not have enough different species, and (2) it reveals no successively evolving species in ancient times.
But, in addition, the fossil experts admit that far too many "new species" names have been applied to fossils which have been found. Consider this:
CONFUSION IN NAMES—Just now we shall mention a technical point that only adds to the confusion as paleontologists try to search for the truth about the fossils. It also gives the impression of far more extinct species in the fossil record than there actually are.
Fossil hunters have the practice of giving different names to the same species if it is found in rocks of different periods! *Dr. Raup, head paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, says that as much as 70 percent of all the "new" fossil species found, are misnamed.
"Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, 'Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?' He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, 'Oh, yes, that's very widely done.' Next he was asked, 'That doesn't seem quite honest. You wouldn't do that, would you?' He said that he hoped he wouldn't . .
"Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species. So 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists."— L.D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.
Obviously, such a practice deepens the problem for the experts. In this chapter our concern will be with underlying facts and principles, yet the doubling and tripling of names for the same fossil species only makes it harder for the experts to extract themselves from their Darwinian muddle.
"An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: 'I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.' So it is simply a mailer of judgment with no firm ground rules."—Op. cit., p. 131.
The experts tell us there are "millions of species." when there are not that many. Taxonomists are the men who classify and give names to plants and animals. Among them, the "splitters" are the ones who find it easier to make up new names than to go to the trouble of properly identifying a specimen in hand.
"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation."—* V Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record, " Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132 [Chairman of the Geology Department, Swansea University].
(See chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, for more on this.) It is well-known among the experts that there are far more splitters out there than lumpers,—simply because applying a new name for a fossil is easier and brings more fame than going through all the drudgery of researching into who had earlier named it.
*Edward Cope and *Othniel Marsh were two major museum fossil collectors in Western U.S. They fiercely hated one another, and for decades consistently double-named specimens—which had already been named earlier. (See chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, for more.)
"Sadly, in the later bitter rivalry between Cope and Marsh, Leidy [an earlier fossil collector] was all but forgotten. Paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, recalled that many of the Eocene and Oligocene animals had been given three names in the scientific literature: the original
Leidy name and the Cope and Marsh names."—*Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 272-273.
Was this article helpful?