hich does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Theological record... does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution... there are not enough intermediates... [There are]very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the se!nse of becoming better adapted."(Raup,1979). (Again, mutation is generally destructive to the organism.) Since this Chicago museum has one of the largest fossil collections in the world, surely more of these gaps showing the progression of evolution should have been filled. The earliest part of the fossil record is generally considered to be the Cambrian. Here life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, and diversified. There are brachiopods, mollusks, flowering plants and vertebrates. This is the antithesis of evolution, and Darwin himself couldn't explain it. Further, no one, including Darwin, can explain when and how insects came into being, or any transition to other arthropods(Kay,Colbert,1965). Even more strange, in the Grand Canyon, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in rocks supposedly deposited some millions of years before life evolved. There are horse-like hoofprints visible in the sesame Canyon rocks. This same phenomenon was discovered in the Soviet Union, also. Frequently fo!ssils have been found in the same rocks of land, marine and flying animals, all of which Darwin felt evolved at vastly different times(Lammerts,1987). Finally, there are the apes, from which man evolved. Consider the Pilt down man, taught in text books for 40 years, but now universally acknowledged as a hoax. Or Nebraska Man, who was based on what later was found to be a pig's tooth. The now infamous Louis Leakey went to great lengths to prove Darwin's theory and make a name for himself. He "discovered" Ramapithecus, a handful of teet...
