posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 08:49 AM
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not
strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” - The
of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do
not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea
of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.” - Paleontologist Alfred Romer, Natural History
, October 1959, p. 467.
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries
the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil
Record to a New History of Life
, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and
a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest
, April 1981, p. 41.
13-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)