“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amount of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree….the belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone.”

A Science News writer, describing the situation in January, 2000 as follows:

” Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The ‘feathered dinosaur’ specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird…!”

The fossil record shows a decrease in complexity of organisms, not an increase.

“80 to 85% of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order” for Evolution.

“Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.” (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

Plus, the premise that mutations are what created complex mechanisms such as the complicated mechanism that allows you to see through your eyeballs is patently false also; mutations create birth defects such as spina bifida, downs syndrome and a number of other abnormalities and blood diseases.

It’s really a weak argument when you think about it, borne out of the Victorian age. It’s simply antiquated and doesn’t match modern scientific evidence.

See: Archaeopteryx – is this bird a fraud?

It wouldn’t be surprising if it was…Piltdown man’s skull was two different skull fragments (one human, the other organgutan) dyed to match and was exposed as a fraud, and so were other examples evolutionists still hold up as “proof” today, such as the changing finch beaks, the fictional peppered moths (Biston betularia) story – (both of which only demonstrate shifts in gene frequencies and not evidence that a man could evolve from a fish.

In fact, what we know about genetics today completely refutes that notion.