After the fact that 99% of mutations are harmful, one of the most difficult and problematic subjects for Darwinists is the total absence of the fictitious fossils known as transitional forms.
Darwinists have sought to explain the absence of transitional forms in other ways, in order to neutralize this fact that is so embarrassing for them, and say instead that “transitional fossils are different to what you imagine.”
First and foremost, this needs to be made crystal clear: the concept of the “transitional form” is one produced by Darwinists themselves. It was Darwinists who came up with the idea that countless transitional forms must have resulted from unsuccessful mutations between two life forms, and that the majority of these fictitious life forms would have been eliminated while only a very few survived. According to this tale, there must have been a time when a fish would supposedly grow feet or when reptiles’ arms would be wings. But this mythical period DOES NOT EXIST in the fossil record.
There is therefore no question of “a concept that we think of as transitional forms.” All descriptions of the entities referred to as transitional forms come from Darwinists. For years, paleontologists have sought but failed to find the transitional form described by Darwin himself. According to that description, transitional forms are DEFORMED AND MONSTROUS living things. It is impossible, according to that description, for them to be anything else.
Were the theory of evolution true, there is no doubt that traces of these fictitious intermediate periods should be found in the fossil record. Fish spending millions of years as its fins supposedly turned into legs, as evolutionists maintain, should exist in this alleged “intermediate state” in the fossil record.
And that is not all. Bearing that 99% of mutations are harmful, there should also be many more examples of all the failed stages pertinent to a life form. There should be millions or even billions of odd-looking life forms that emerged as a result of failed mutations everywhere on Earth.
Bearing in mind that mutations are blind and random processes and are inevitably harmful, then, no matter how unwilling Darwinists may be to admit the fact, all these supposedly successful or supposedly unsuccessful transitional forms would all have been deformed and twisted, with legs coming out of ears, half-fins and half-legs, with three ears instead of two...
Yet not one such deformed living things, nor any transitional form of the kind imagined by evolutionists, has ever been found among the more than 300 million fossils that have so far been unearthed. Indeed, what troubles Darwinists most is that all fossils are completely regularly, symmetrical and fully formed; in other words, that FOSSILS REFUTE EVOLUTION.
As readers will recall, Darwin’s greatest worry was that transitional forms would not be “IN A STATE OF CONFUSION” and that everything in nature HAS A PERFECT REGULARITY AND SYMMETRY:
HY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, DO WE NOT EVERYWHERE SEE INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? WHY IS NOT ALL NATURE IN CONFUSION INSTEAD OF THE SPECIES BEING, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED? . .1
MUTATIONS DO NOT PRODUCE SYMMETRY.. THEY KNOW NOTHING OF HARMONY, ORDER OR THE GOLDEN MEAN. THEY DO NOT CALCULATE WHAT WILL BENEFIT A LIVING THING. Mutations are unconscious processes. They cannot lead to two symmetrical eyes and ears, symmetrical heart valves or two legs of the same length.
That is why one Turkish Darwinist, well aware of this fact and that transitional fossils do not exist, despairingly DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM on a television program.
This is really a desperate state of affairs for Darwinists. Darwinists have no hesitations over rejecting the scientific facts and humiliating themselves for the sake of their ideology.
People need to be reminded that demagoguery no longer has any effect on people, since it has become a laughing stock. Darwin’s nightmare has come true, the fossil record refutes evolution.
For more detail regarding the invalidity of the concept of transitional forms, see: