AIG Says There Are No Transitional Fossils

This is a good example of creation science from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). It’s a reprint of something from 1994, which they’re posting again because their stuff is timeless. The title is The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution. It was written by David Menton. AIG’s bio page says:

Dr. David Menton holds a PhD in biology from Brown University and served as an award-winning professor at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis for 34 years. He retired as an Associate Professor Emeritus and now serves with Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher.

This is his write-up at the Encyclopedia of American Loons: David Menton, and here ere are some excerpts from his essay, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism.

Can you believe that they’re still posting stuff like this? We always link to Wikipedia’s growing List of transitional fossils, and we’ll also give you two of several relevant links from the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims: There are no transitional fossils, and We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.

Okay, you know what we’re dealing with, so let’s proceed. Menton says:

This [alleged lack of transitionals] has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists — but they have made it clear that they will not be dissuaded by the mere lack of evidence, nor will they turn to a Creator to explain this enigma. Rather, evolutionists hope that monsters may come to their rescue!

Stunning, isn’t it? What’s this stuff about monsters? We’ll get to it. Menton tells us:

All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuous transitional stages. While some of these fossilized organisms have become extinct, many have persisted right up to the present time in what appears to be essentially their original form, showing only a limited range of variation.


The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal would certainly seem to be an insurmountable problem for evolutionism. Evolutionists have long been aware of this problem and have felt compelled to try to explain it away by any means possible, short of abandoning their faith in evolutionism itself.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

Paleontologists have indeed been trying to imagine some “special explanation” for how progressive evolution could occur without leaving any fossil evidence. Since evolutionary speculations have rarely been restricted by the demands of experimental verification, evolutionists have allowed their imaginations to run free and have now devised a really outrageous explanation for their lack of evidence.

Menton then refers to some scientists from the 1930s and 1940s who allegedly gave up on the hope of ever finding transitional fossils. One of them is Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Menton tells us:

He suggested that the answer might lie in what are known as embryological monsters, such as the occasional birth of a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle. Goldschmidt conceded that such monsters rarely survived very long in nature, but he hoped that over a long period of time some monsters might actually be better suited to survive and reproduce than their normal siblings. Goldschmidt named this monstrously hopeless speculation the “hopeful monster theory.” Since there was not even the slightest shred of evidence to support the hopeful monster theory, it was dismissed with derision by almost all evolutionists of his time. But Goldschmidt was quick to point out to his critics that there wasn’t the slightest evidence for their gradual evolution either!

Wikipedia has a write up on Richard Goldschmidt. He was regarded as a bit of a kook by his contemporaries. Then Menton talks about Stephen Jay Gould
and his idea of Punctuated equilibrium — as if it were a desperate attempt to avoid the utter absence of transitional fossils.

Having presented what he imagines is an utterly devastating blow to the theory of evolution, Mention finishes his essay with this:

The reader may well ask at this point, of what use is evolutionary speculation itself — and why is it being taught as a “fact” in our schools?

There you have it, dear reader. The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis have clearly demonstrated that evolution is a fraud. So why don’t you give it up?

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “AIG Says There Are No Transitional Fossils

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    Start from a lie, and keep repeating it for 23 years, and the sheep will believe it. The premise is so easy to disprove, but their peeps won’t have none of it. Good grief.

  2. Skeptical Servent

    I’m tired of nonsense from religious nuts that do not understand how science works there are a bunch of
    transitional fossils out there and they don’t bother to do any research because they are frauds.

  3. “…as in all our experience we have never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical to assume that any species ever had been created.”
    Herbert Spenser, “The Development Hypothesis” (1852)

  4. That should be 1852, before the Origin of Species.

  5. The evidence is in. The moment Menton started commenting on Tiktaalic’s pelvic fins, he stamped himself as a liar. Not merely ignorant. Not a mere purveyor of untruths. Not as mistaken, nor even deluded. A liar. A flat, straight-out, knowing, deliberate, liar.

    Jesus, you know, is said to have disliked liars.

  6. Preachers are always complaining that “scientists are playing God,” but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist–The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

  7. Christine Janis

    See terrific takedown on Menton and Tiktaalik here

    But I’m seeing a growing tendency for creationists to focus on the lack of bat intermediates —- it’s all they have left now that we’ve filled in the whales, hominids, dinobirds, fish to tetrapods, reptiles to mammals, etc. etc.

    Note that, if and when scientists do find a bat intermediate fossil, there will be two options:

    1. It can’t fly, ergo it’s not a bat

    2. If can fly, ergo it’s only a bat.

  8. Unfortunately, the liars of AiG, the Disco’Tute, and all their ilk have wealthy and poweful friends in high places: World’s largest general science organisation slams Trump’s lack of ‘scientific thinking’

  9. Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism.

    Holy nonsense, Batman!

    Surely Dr. Menton means species rather than organism Otherwise he’s right back to “Show me a monkey turning into a man”–and evolutionary scientists have never claimed that the process occurs Incredible Hulk-style, with or without menacing background sound effects.

    As for the supposed lack of transitional fossils, this one’s been beaten to death (even in the above post), so there’s no point in my landing another blow.

  10. I think that many people, including people who don’t have any trouble with evolution, think that the primary evidence for evolution is from fossils.
    But there are several kinds of evidence. For example.
    1) Taxonomy. The “Tree of Life” or the multiple congruent nested hierarchy.
    Comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, genetics.
    3)Observations of evolution in the present in the lab and in nature.
    5)A well-developed productive theory

  11. Michael Fugate

    But most of us already knew that.
    I also like that the LBGTQ community has relabeled Ham’s building the “gay boat” after his attempt to rainbow light it – rather than being angry.

  12. Interesting that they recycle this old claim when there are so many, many, many more transitional examples. And, so much more molecular support for evolution and common origin of all living things. An omnipotent creator/designer could have made multiple life forms with a different biochemistry, but instead chose just one. But, I don’t expect logic or reason from these folks, just repetition, hoping that will make it so. Sigh.

  13. Meh. As soon as an evolutionist presents a fossil and claims it to be transitional it ceases to be transitional by definition, according to creacrap.

  14. Btw AIG’s creacrap was already outdated many a century ago:

    Someone should show this to Ol’Hambo and co.

  15. Eddie Janssen

    It is very difficult to discuss the mechanisms and details of evolution with people who think the earth is only 6000 years old. Maybe not even difficult, but impossible

  16. Eddie Janssen

    If a creationist believes the earth is 4½ billion years old you could try to convince him/her that because children are of the same species as their parents (well, most of the time) and your personal 50 millionth greatgrandmother certainly wasn’t human, a gradual evolution from some chordate around 500 million years ago to Homo Sapiens must have taken place.

  17. Derek Freyberg

    Sure there are transitional fossils, living ones too. Hambo is the type specimen.

  18. About ancient understanding of the Bible, I recommend
    James L. Kugel
    The Bible As It Was
    Belknap Press of Harvard U. Press, 1997
    ISBN 0-674-06940-4
    BS1225.2.K84 1997
    This book gives examples of interpretations of the Bible from a couple of centuries before and after the change of era BCE-CE. What people of the culture of the Ancient Near East, the culture in which the Bible was written.