A Built on Rock Website
Home Key Points Artwork Articles Resources Contact Events

Home     Key Points     Artwork     Articles     Resources      Contact     Events

About Built on Rock     Useful Links     Book a Talk

Built on Rock Websites

Dinosaurs for Dummies                                  Richard Dawkins                                                   More To Life

Built on Rock ! Exploring Answers to Questions about Life, The Universe & Everything
Find the Lady: Mother Nature!

Find the Lady: The Three Card Trick

Used by tricksters since the 15 th century, taking part in this nifty piece of street corner trickery is a quick way to lose your money. The queen of hearts is never where you expect it be. The same is true of Mother Nature as presented by evolutionists. Nothing is where you expect it to be. The question is, does this Queen of Creation, dear old Mother Nature really exist?

Why is nature so unforthcoming? Why does not Mother Nature bare her soul to those who have examined her body so minutely and intrusively? Should not a process that has created everything we know and see be full of examples that would forever conclude the debate and leave Dawkins and his cohorts celebrating beneath some suitable triumphal arch. Evolutionists claim to have myriad examples, too many to mention. Unfortunately all of them were produced during periods of history that were not observable to man. And now finally, when mankind is fully adapted to observe and document the process, electron microscope at the ready, evolution ceases all observable activity. Not a transitional form in sight. No intermediary, no new method of flight being developed, no innovative method of seeing, no Hippo growing gills and returning to its ancient habitat, no squirrel developing echo location. Such a disappointment. Evolution? Where is it when you want it? It exists only in the mind of writers and film producers, as in popular series like the Matrix, or X Men, or Heroes or Spider Man do mutants appear as progressive forms, the next step in human evolution. These are no less fictions than are the many and varied claims of evolutionists.

Here is an example of evolution as it appears in the literature. It is a fact free zone.

An evolution myth: the fish that made it onto land.

For all the flaws in the fossil record there is little to compare to the two forms of lobe finned fish described as living fossils: they are the coelacanths and the lung fish. These fish are the evolutionists answer to the problem of which kinds of fishlike creature made it onto land.

There are two are among the foremost candidates: firstly coelacanths. These fish live in deep water environments and are astonishingly adapted to this extreme lifestyle. (link to coelacanth article in the daughter website: Richard Dawkins what if you are wrong) These fish were thought to have been extinct for seventy million years until a living coelacanth was pulled out of the sea by the crew of a fishing boat.

Let us therefore concentrate on the lung fish. It is supposed that some ancestral type of these lobe finned fish provides the necessary evolutionary step that led to the emergence of four legged air breathing animals. The following is a good example of how evolutionists develop an example of evolution without having to produce a single fact.

These lobe-finned fish are bony fishes with fleshy, lobed, paired fins, which are joined to the body by a single bone. The fins of lobe-finned fishes differ from those of all other fish in that each is borne on a fleshy, lobe-like, scaly stalk extending from the body....These fins evolved into legs of the first tetrapod land vertebrates, amphibians.'


Lung fish are believed to go back 400,000000 years. Over that period they have remained unchanged and unmoved. While living on the cusp of a possible evolutionary journey onto land they have remained stubbornly attached to their part marine, part terrestrial and part air-breathing life. Was it that these lungfish, these strange inbetweenies were designed for this life and no other life?

Evolutionists look at the lung fish and state that some unknown and never seen ancestral type made the journey spurned by every known generation of lungfish. That type of conjecture is typical of evolutionary thinking. They ignore what is staring them in the face, which is that animals do not change in the way predicted by evolutionary theory.

As its name suggests, lungfish have both gills and lungs with which to breathe oxygen. This was one of the reasons scientists had such trouble deciding what sort of animal Neoceratodus (The Queensland Lung Fish) and its kin were. It is the closest to the so called primitive Dipnoi lungfishes found fossilised in Devonian rock layers about 413-365 million years ago, and is the most primitive surviving member of this line. Primitive, in evolution speak does not necessarily mean it is any less efficient than any other kind. They may just be different for a good reason. For instance the Queensland variety may be less adapted to life without water and better adapted to life in water than their African and South American cousins. This might explain the recently discovered fact that they have organs for the reception of electric signals that are similar to those used by sharks. This feature enables them to detect prey in water. Primitive is a word evolutionists insert to add value to their theory. The theory requires that this particular lung fish is placed on the bottom rung of their tree of life re fish to amphibian evolution.

The key words in this story without a fact is this quote from Wikipedia.

'The specific aquatic ancestors of the tetrapods, and the process by which land colonization occurred, remain unclear....'

In other words they do not have a clue, nor do they have any evidence. According to their own timeline these fish have lived in the same habitat for 400,000000 years without ever colonising land only a few metres from where they are born, reproduce and die.

The answer to the missing evidence

If you believe in punctuated equilibrium, a theory developed to account for the failures in the fossil record the following may be said:

“You expected to see it happening! Get real. Don’t you understand, it happened quickly, too fast to appreciate, come and gone in an instant of geological time and in some small isolated population. To expect to observe such a phenomena is absurd.”

Or, alternatively, classic Darwinism:

“The reason for its non-appearance is that it happens so slowly that it cannot be seen. Millions of years, gradualism, consequently we notice nothing. Just listen in awe and appreciate the soundless whisper of its passing.”

It is people like this, well educated people, many of them academics and scientists who manage to hold the two unconnected threads of this theory together not realising that common sense would slice them through. These people continue slapping each other on the back while cooing the national anthem of extreme self-satisfaction. Do they ever turn even one of their billions of brain cells to ask the simple question: what if I am wrong? Of course they do not, it is against their religion to challenge the current orthodoxy. This little piece, however poor it may be, is the result of asking myself many times over precisely that self-same question. If there was any conclusive evidence for evolution my faith would have been thoroughly shaken.

There is good reason to doubt current interpretations of the fossil evidence, but this article is not the place to illustrate the failure. The fact that Stephen J Gould's book Punctuated Equilibrium was written is a clear enough indication. He writes at length in that book regarding the lack of good fossil evidence. And he was a devoted evolutionist who regularly complained about creationists using his material to make their points.

The truth is that Darwin’s tree of life could be very adequately illustrated and described through the bone structures of fish, amphibians, mammals and birds that are alive today. This they cannot do for obvious reasons; all creatures alive today live as contemporaries to one another. But supposing all knowledge concerning the fossilisation of the past disappeared from both sight and memory. Following that imagine that the current crop of species were buried in rock strata just like those we have just forgotten. Now you have all modern species that exist today lost to memory and buried and fossilised, lying undiscovered under hundreds of metres of sedimentary rock strata. Imagine the clock moved on a few thousand years and have paleontologists begin the process of discovering all the species known to us laid out: carefully catalogued and interpreted according to a Darwinian methodology. Then you can have your lung fish to land animal evolutionary scenario. It would look convincing but it would be false. It would deceive the majority and dissident voices would be repressed. They could prove their hypothesis by setting out for example the story of horse evolution. Take the entire range of fossilised horses and place them in an evolutionary sequence: from the tiny Falabella, small Shetland / Dartmoor ponies through donkey and mule and the primitive looking Fjord Pony. This could be followed by a divide, a branch splitting into two twigs. Follow one evolutionary twig through the original smaller Clydesdale up to Percheron and Shire Horses. On the other twig you proceed by way of Iberian horses through Mustang, Anglo Arab and Hanoverian. The number of toes on a hoof from four or three to one can be easily explained just as differing sizes and shapes of finch beaks are now explained by gene regulation and genetic switches. The potential for a horse to have anything from four toes to a single hoof is possibly still present in their genome. In any case both three toed and one toed specimens have been found in the John Day formation Oregon (between 39 and 18 million years) meaning they probably lived as contemporaries.

If you begin with an assumption: that the incarnate goddess Naturalism (or Mother Nature) is nature's default mechanism, then a way opens up for a hypothesis that interprets the physical evidence as above. In other words a perfect evolutionary scenario could be produced, published, broadcast that becomes the established paradigm. And it would be false and inaccurate from beginning to end.

And that is exactly what Creationists believe has been done.