Where Are All The Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?
May 24th, 2006
by B. G. Ranganathan
Millions of people are taught that
the fossil record is proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of
half-evolved dinosaurs or any other creatures in the fossil record?
evolution takes millions and millions of years, if evolution actually
occurred we should see some stages of that evolution in the fossils.
But, we don't find fossils of half-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds,
dogs, cats, or anything else. Every species of plant or animal in the
fossils is complete and fully formed.
problem is how could a partially-evolved plant or animal survive for
millions of years while its basic organs and tissues were still
evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and
reproducing while there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs
were still supposedly evolving over millions and million and millions of
And, if evolution is occurring
today, why don't we see a half-evolved chipmunk running around as
evidence that evolution is still happening. In fact, more and more
modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory which says that plant and
animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why
we don't see partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course,
we have to accept their word on blind faith because there's no way to
prove or disprove what they're saying.
Comment on this Article
at our Forum
The fact that animal and plant
species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is
powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is
evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete
which is only possible by creation.
Evolutionists claim that the genetic
and biological similarities between species is evidence of common
ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence.
Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a
common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in
all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically
Although Darwin was partially
correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem
is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural
selection can only work with those biological variations that are
possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for
horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.)
but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless nature has
the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not
early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are
really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck
regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx
and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than
the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The
coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the
science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or
biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether
they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the
genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties
among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.
Biological variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving
from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like
creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not
possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic
Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of
species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various
nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in
a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how
to construct various tissues and organs.
common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the
genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new
traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon
resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to
be a form of natural genetic engineering.
However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility.
Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the
genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as
radiation and toxic chemicals.
all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect
from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one
there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time
being disastrous for the species.
biological variations occur as a result of new combinations of
previously existing genes - not because of mutations which are rare in
Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing
traits (i.e. varieties of hair color, texture, etc.). Sometimes
mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e.
an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of
the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits
people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of
people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle,
that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (
i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who
both have black hair.
some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different
color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce
all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the
genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first
parents did possess such genes.
varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not
all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example,
one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color
( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one
variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will
have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.
cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're
here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are
both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian
macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.
is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist,
creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers
various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, biological variation and
diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the
issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth
in his website at
www.creationscience.com. Another excellent source of information
from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute
for Creation Research (www.icr.org)
in San Diego, California.
website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life
on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological
disturbances in the Earth's past which easily could have spewed
thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In
fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly
only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments
and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.
Sincerely, Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. Bible/Biology)
By Babu G. Ranganathan
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is
an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic
concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he
has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The
East. The author has a website at:
Keywords and Misspellings: evoloution creasion
creationism darwin and theory creation religions believes myths facts