CRSQ Archive

Copyright © 1988, 2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.

Volume 25, Number 1
June, 1988

A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition

A. W. Mehlert, Dip. Th.

For many years evolutionists have claimed that of all major groups of plants and animals, the fossil record of the origin of Class Mammalia is easily the best. (Olson, p. 207). However it will be shown that the case for the reptile to mammal transformation is extremely shaky and is based largely on inference, supposition and wishful thinking. Although I quote large-scale time frames and use standard geological terms in respect of epochs, eras and periods, I do not imply my acceptance of the time scales. I use the time periods for the sake of argument, but even so, the fossils do not provide a strong case for evolution.

Naturalistic Outlook

Clarence B. Carson, Ph.D.

The ascendance of naturalism over supernaturalism in American intellectual circles is traced. The effect of the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis in American literature, economics and sociology is reviewed.

The Postulated Evidence for Macroevolution and Darwinism:

Darwinian Arguments and the Disintegrating Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (Part I)

W.R. Bird, J.D.

The eight primary lined of evidence offered for macroevolution and Darwinian mechanisms are discussed. Evolutionist scientists and writers are quoted who suggest that (1) the paleontology argument "contributed . . . nothing to evolutionary biology"; (2) the phylogeny argument has produced only a "meaningless waffle" and has been "another miserable failure"; (3) the classification argument "has nothing to say about evolution" and "ignorance concerning these relationships is still great"; and (4) the "facts of comparative anatomy provide no evidence for evolution," while the "attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Similarly, (5) the embryological argument used to center on a biogenetic "law" that has "been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars" and now stands on the problem that "[a]natomically homologous parts in different related organisms appear to have quite different origins"; (6) the comparative biochemistry argument offers a "serious . . . challenge to the whole evolutionary framework" rather than support by widespread anomalies that require "a robust rejection of generalized molecular clock hypothesis of DNA evolution"; (7) the population genetics argument has made "no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin of species," and "is merely the blind leading the blind"; and (8) the artificial selection argument overlooks that "selective breeding is not analogous to the action of 'natural selection'." All scientists mentioned in this article are evolutionists.

Has the Speed of Light Decayed Recently?--Paper 1

Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D.

The hypothesis that the speed of light has decayed, presented by Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield in The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, is shown to be unsupported by an objective analysis of the actual historic measurements of the speed of light given in that report. The implications of the hypothesis for radioactivity and radiocarbon dating are shown to be unacceptable.

Has the Speed of Light Decayed Recently?--Paper 2

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Because its historical research and statistical analyses have no depth, this book (Norman and Setterfield, 1987) fails to prove that the speed of light has decreased over the past three centuries. Its theoretical interpretations are flawed, and in some parts do not make sense.



Read 211 times Last modified on Sunday, 16 March 2014 14:54