Egad — There Are Gaps in the Fossil Record!

An ark-load of evidence is presented in the latest post at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. The title of the thing is Billions of Missing Links: Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a classic ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Casey Luskin [Wow!] interviews Dr. Geoffrey Simmons [Who?] , author of Billions of Missing Links.

That was a link to Simmons’ book at Amazon. The publisher is Harvest House Publishers — a Christian publishing company, but not a vanity press. Who is Simmons? Actually, we’ve encountered him before. Almost three years ago we wrote Discoveroids: All the Links Are Missing. Simmons — who was then a new Discoveroid fellow — was complaining about a lack of transitional fossils. His post was the usual collection of creationist clunkers, and we gave the expected responses. Now you know what we’re dealing with.

The Discoveroid post then says:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

If you want to listen to the thing, click over to the Discoveroids’ post and have a ball. We’re moving on. The Discoveroids tell us:

In the book Simmons shows that as modern science has progressed from the visible to the invisible (from the macroscopic to the biomolecular and biochemical) the numbers of missing evolutionary links have skyrocketed.

Skyrocketed? Yeah, right. As we said three years ago in Creationist Wisdom #888: Missing Links:

Well, we know what bears do in the woods, but they also die there. Where are the uncountable millions of bear fossils? Similarly, why don’t we find hundreds of millions of buffalo fossils in the American West? They don’t exist either. Why?

It’s not that complicated. Fossilization is rare. Almost all dead animals are quickly devoured by scavengers, and whatever remains will be consumed by worms and then bacteria To be preserved, an animal needs to conveniently die in a bog, or a glacier, or maybe an avalanche. Such events are rare. And even if it were frequent, the geology must remain stable for millennia — but this doesn’t happen either.

The Discoveroid post continues — well, actually it ends with this:

Every new discovery brings many more questions than answers, and ever more evidence that blind evolution cannot explain the origin of life’s astonishingly sophisticated biological designs.

So where does that leave us? They don’t say it, but you know what they think of all those gaps, don’t you? Sure you do, and it’s this: The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — is the God of the gaps. Additionally, Darwin was an idiot, and if you, dear reader, are an evolutionist, then you’re a hell-bound fool!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “Egad — There Are Gaps in the Fossil Record!

  1. docbill1351

    Geoffrey Simmons, standard dishonest creationist nut, American Loon #360.

    From the Loon site:
    “Diagnosis: Godbotter and Liar for Jesus whose lack of intellectual honesty is only matched by his ignorance. Influential enough to be considered a threat.”

  2. Apparently there is money to be made in recycling old trash.

  3. One of the features of science as a growing field, which attracts people to doing work at it, is that it is turning out new questions. It has been pointed out that every new discovery of a species in a transition exposes two new transitions. Where there was the transition from A to B, now there are two transitions, from A to C, and from C to B.
    The more we learn about Mars, the more questions we have.

  4. chris schilling

    The podcast turned out to be a Gish gallop, in just under 15 minutes. With Casey at the helm, you were never going to get any pushback against Simmons’ assertions about the impossibility of “lizards” evolving feathers, for instance, or the supposed lack of evidence for giraffe evolution in the fossil record. Someone like Aron Ra, on the other hand, would have steamrolled Simmons on the latter’s incompetency.

    We know kids as young as six can recognise transitional fossils — Neil Shubin has demonstrated as much with fossil casts of Tiktallik. And I’ve witnessed secondary students — when presented with hominin fossil skulls — “get it”, too, so there are no problems with the idea of transitional forms.

    Simmons’ naivete (read: ignorance) might be slightly endearing in a small child, except that the kids are generally more astute and honest than he.

  5. chris schilling

    As an addendum:
    In the podcast, Simmons denies he has ties to any religious group, or that he harbours fundamentalist agendas. Perhaps not, but the EN post features a pic of Simmons overlooking the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.

    Make of that what you will.

  6. docbill1351

    @CS

    “As an addendum:
    In the podcast, Simmons denies he has ties to any religious group, or that he harbours fundamentalist agendas. ”

    Simmons is a liar, but, then again, all creationists are liars and dishonest. His dishonesty is legend. Creep is as creep does.

    And, no, I cut no slack.

  7. Yer! What about the masses of entirely different shellfish kinds that were noted by Cuvier between different strata – not so rare. Read his “theory of the earth’.

  8. That there are cases of transitions does not conflict with cases where there are gaps in the transitions. Given that there have been millions, if not billionsorig, of species – it is not surprising that all possible transitions have not been individually documented.
    On the other hand, Intelligent Design has not documented the process of origin of even one taxon.

  9. I won’t be able to post anything new this evening, so y’all just keep going anyway. I should have new stuff for tomorrow.

  10. Dave Luckett

    TomS: Yes. Always more questions. Always new questions. To a creationist, that’s a bug, as they have said many times. To a scientist, or a rational person, it’s a feature.

    I am beginning to wonder if that simple property is the real difference between science and faith, and whether that could be worked up into a justification for NOMA. It really does seem to encapsulate a different attitude to answers, and to what questions answers can be found.