Abandoned Transitional Forms

Darwin's problem

Sheer weight of contrary evidence

by Russell Grigg

Charles Darwin had a problem—a huge one. He couldn’t name any transitional forms in his Origin of Species (1859). Instead he devoted a whole chapter to lamenting “The Imperfection of the Geological Record”, in which he wrote:

“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. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

Darwin didn’t have this problem on his own. Dr Colin Patterson (1933–1998), Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London, when asked why he had no illustrations of evolutionary transitions in his 1978 book Evolution, said: “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”. And Prof. Stephen J. Gould (1941–2002) said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”

Indeed, 150 years of vigorous searching by evolutionists through millions of tonnes of fossils has failed to produce even one clear ‘chain’ of such transitional forms, let alone the multitudes of chains required by Darwinism. Over the years, only a tiny handful of ‘candidates’ claimed to be ‘transitional’ has been produced. These have usually been announced in a blaze of publicity to showcase evolution and indoctrinate everybody. However, when with time the weight of contrary evidence has indicated error, recantation (if any) has usually been whisper quiet, and the next generation of scientists promotes its own contenders.

This article discusses some of the claimed transitional forms which evolutionists themselves have had to abandon through sheer weight of contrary evidence…


image credit: Unknown