“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.” (The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859)
Good point, Charles. But since Origin was published 150 years ago, no such evidence has been found.
Instead, after countless excavations, examinations, interpretations and postulations, we find that if anything, evidence increasingly points in a different direction. Since 1859 numerous startling discoveries have suggested that a gradual development of life did not take place over millions of years.
Rather there was literally an explosion of fully developed forms in a very short span of time.
In the Cambrian layer of the geologic column (estimated by evolutionists to be 500-600 million years old), every variety of life with all major body forms is accounted for and fully developed. And below the Cambrian layer? Practically no fossilized specimens. Above the Cambrian layer the number of fossils gradually decrease, also the opposite of what one would expect in the evolutionary model.
Richard Dawkins, an Oxford zoologist and no enemy of evolution, commented on the apparent contradictions presented by the Cambrian layer: “For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” (The Blind Watchmaker, emphasis supplied)
Evolutionists, including Darwin, were certain that the fossil record would prove the theory of evolution. All that was needed were a few examples of what were certainly the billions of missing links and intermediate forms from single-celled amoeba to Harvard-educated scientist.
Such proof remains suspiciously elusive.
In this case perhaps the absence of proof actually is proof of its absence.