Creation Facts of Life (22 page)

In the geologic sequence, the flowering plants first appear suddenly and in great diversity in Cretaceous ("upper dinosaur") rock. Darwin was aware of the situation and called the origin of these plants "an abominable mystery." As my professor of paleobotany summarized it, nothing has happened in the last century or so to solve that mystery. As far as the fossil evidence is concerned, we simply find different varieties of the same types of plants we have today, plus decline and/or extinction in many cases.

There is a tendency to give every different fossil fragment a different scientific genus-species name. Five different genus names were given to fossil specimens that later turned out to be parts of just
one
type of tree, the
Lepidodendron.
Many of the flowering plants are so easily recognizable that they are classified using the same scientific names we use today.

Other fossil plants are as easily classified as the flowering plants. The ferns and fern allies appear suddenly and simultaneously in Silurian/Devonian rock in far greater diversity than we have today (Figure 24), yet none of these fossil plants has any features of anatomy, morphology, or reproduction that are hard to understand in terms of what we observe among living plants. The difference is this: There used to be many more kinds of ferns and fern allies on the earth than there are today. And some of these that are small and inconspicuous today, like the "ground pine"
(Lycopodium)
and "horsetail"
(Equisetum),
had fossils with similar parts that grew to be huge trees (e.g.,
Lepidodendron
and
Calamites,
respectively). The structural design and classification of plants seem to point to creation; the decline in size and variety to the corruption and catastrophe that followed.

Figure 24. Fossil plants are easily classified using the same criteria we use today and, perhaps because of extinction following the Flood, we find even greater variation among fossil plants than we find now. As Professor Corner of Cambridge put it, "…to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

Even the algae are recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil sequence as greens, blue-greens, reds, browns, and yellow-browns, the same groups we have today. The "oldest" fossils found so far are some Precambrian cyanobacteria or blue-green algae that form rocky structures called
stromatolites
. (I've had the privilege of examining and photographing these on both the west and south coasts of Australia.) Are these "simple" forms of life like evolutionists had hoped to find? Exactly the opposite! When it comes to energy biochemistry, those "simple" organisms are more complex than we are. They can take sea water and turn it into living cells, using just sunlight for energy — a
fantastically
intricate feat of biochemical engineering called photosynthesis. (Don't you wish we could run on just water, air, and sunlight!?)

Blue-greens are also found living the same way just offshore from their "old" Precambrian fossils. What's the lesson from these "oldest" plant fossils? Evolution — change from simple beginnings to more complex and varied kinds? Not at all. The lesson from the "oldest" plant fossils seems to be the same as that from the "oldest" animal fossils: Living things were created complex and well designed to multiply after kind.

New fossil discoveries are usually reported as if they support evolution, when the opposite is often true. The discovery of the first flowering plant fossil in Jurassic rock below the "Cretaceous explosion" of flowering plants was at first hailed as a breakthrough in solving Darwin's "abominable mystery," the origin of flowering plants. After the hype wore off, however, evolutionists recognized the mystery was only moved down a layer, and creationists noted the evidence still pointed to creation: the first flowering plants still well-designed to multiply after kind, with the occasional flower found, as it is today, among a profusion of cycads and conifers.

While evolution's trumpets blared, discovery of the wollemi pine growing in Australia was touted as the plant equivalent of finding a live dinosaur, since fossils had suggested it died out with the dinosaurs. But here it was, alive and well and looking just like it had always looked, stronger evidence for creation than evolution it would seem.
⁷⁷

Like
Gingko biloba
and the dawn redwood, the wollemi "dinosaur pine" is another example of a "living fossil," a rare, unchanged survivor of a once widely distributed and successful group. The lesson is not evolution but creation (well-designed, after kind) followed by corruption and catastrophe, including worldwide habitat destruction and climate change following the Genesis flood.

My paleobotany professor (an evolutionist) started his class by saying he supposed we were there to learn about the evolution of plants. Then he told us that we weren't going to learn much. What we
would
learn, he said, is that our modern plant groups go way back in their fossil history. Sure enough, all we studied was "petrified plant anatomy," features already familiar to me from the study of living plants. We encountered some difficulties in classification, of course, but only the same kinds which we encounter among the
living
plants. Summarizing the evidence from fossil plant studies, E.J.H. Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, once put it this way (even though he believed in their evolution): "…to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
⁷⁸

Vertebrates: Animals With Backbones

When we come to the vertebrates, the animals with backbones, the situation changes dramatically. We run smack into the most powerful evidence of
evolution.
At least that's what I used to tell my students when I taught university biology as an evolutionist.

Sometimes I would run into a student who would ask me, "If evolution is true, where are the missing links?" "Missing links?" I'd say. "Glad you asked. It just so happens we have a perfect example:
Archaeopteryx,
the link that shows how reptiles evolved into birds!"

Archaeopteryx
has been
the
showcase for evolution. Found in 1860, the Berlin specimen is pictured in nearly all biology textbooks. That specimen, along with a reconstruction in the same position, is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25. At last — evidence of evolution! …or is it? The famous Archaeopteryx combines features most often found in reptiles (teeth, claws, unfused vertebrae, and a long bony tail) with features distinctive of birds (wings, feathers, and a furcula or wishbone). Does Archaeopteryx provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers, or legs into wings? Is Archaeopteryx more likely an evolutionary link, or a mosaic of complete traits (a distinctive created kind)? Read both sides and think about it.

At first, you may wonder what the fuss is all about. It has feathers, wings, and a beak, so it's a bird. But look closer. It has teeth in the bill, claws on the wings, no keel on the breast bone, an unfused backbone, and a long, bony tail. These are all characteristics we normally associate with reptiles. What's more, the existence of a creature like
Archaeopteryx
was predicted by evolutionists before any such specimen was found! What's a creationist going to say to a "perfect example of evolution" like
Archaeopteryx?
There's no way I can get you to consider creation without facing up to
Archaeopteryx.

Well, first of all, the reptile-like features are not really as reptile-like as you might suppose. The familiar ostrich, for example, has claws on its wings that are even
more
"reptile-like" than those of
Archaeopteryx.
Several birds, such as the hoatzin, don't have much of a keel. The penguin has unfused backbones and a bony tail. No living birds have socketed teeth, but some fossil birds do. Besides, some reptiles have teeth and some don't, so presence or absence of teeth is not particularly important in distinguishing the two groups.

More importantly, take a look at the individual features of
Archaeopteryx.
Is there any clue as to how legs evolved into wings? No, none at all. When we find wings as fossils, we find
completely developed, fully functional wings.
That's true of
Archaeopteryx,
and it's also true of the flying insects, flying reptiles (pterodactyls), and the flying mammals (bats).

Is there any clue in
Archaeopteryx
as to
how
reptilian scales evolved into feathers? No, none at all. When we find feathers as fossils, we find
fully developed and functional feathers.
Feathers are quite complex structures, with little hooks and eyelets for zippering and unzippering them.
Archaeopteryx
not only had complete and complex feathers, but feathers of several different types, including the asymmetric feather characteristic of strong fliers.

What about lack of a keel? Actually, muscles for the power stroke in flight attach to the wishbone or furcula, and
Archaeopteryx
had "an extremely robust furcula." A growing number of evolutionists, perhaps a consensus, now believe that
Archaeopteryx
was a strong flier and the first bird, and not a missing link between reptiles and birds (see Carey
⁷⁹
).

Despite the demise of
Archaeopteryx
, evolutionists retain a deep-seated belief that someday a missing link between dinosaurs and birds will be found. As I write this, the evolutionist's faith is focused on fossils from China, where large numbers of dinosaurs, dinosaur eggs, and some birds are found.

Several mistaken claims have already been made and falsified, including the major blunder published in
National Geographic
under the title "Feathers for
T. rex
."
⁸⁰

With all the artistic (NOT scientific) skill for which
National Geographic
is famous, the public was treated to the picture of a baby "
T. rex
-bird" covered with down feathers like a newly hatched chick. Detailed art-work showed a close-up of the presumed "dinosaur feather." In three months, over 100,000 young people saw the "proof" for dinosaur-bird evolution on display at
National Geographic
's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

It was all
FAKE
. The supposed fossil was fake. The art work and article in
National Geographic
described a
fake
. What influenced so many students touring the
National Geographic
exhibit in Washington was the display of a
fake
.

Scientists with expert knowledge of birds, such as Storrs Olson at the prestigious Smithsonian Institute, also in Washington, D.C., recognized the scientific problems with
National Geographic
's story almost immediately. In an open letter published in the
Smithsonian
magazine (dated November 1, 1999), Storrs Olson
⁸¹
sternly rebuked
National Geographic
for (emphasis added) "…UNSUBSTANTIATED, SENSATIONALISTIC, TABLOID JOURNALISM…." — putting the
Geographic
article in the same class as those about alien abductions and pigs that fly. His letter included details of many other examples of "scientific malpractice" in the
National Geographic
article.

The fake was not particularly clever or subtle. Bolstering the myth that evolution is making scientific progress, a fawning and uncritical media often publicize flashy stories of exaggerated claims, only to publish an obscure retraction or "different interpretation" a few weeks later.

The "feathers for
T. rex
" turned out to be fossils of bird parts cemented together with fossils of dinosaur parts. At least this time the evolutionist's error was so huge and obvious that it did get national media attention. The article detailing the fake in
USA Today
,
⁸²
for example, was headlined: