Page 439 - 1970S

20
( Morphology and Evolution of Fo.;sil
Plants, p. 134).
If one looked at the evolutionary–
based geological time scalc, he would
find that the Triassic period is said to
have begun over 200 million ycars ago!
T oday's cycads are practically
unchanged. Thcy prescnt a real puzzle
to paleobotanists.
Then there is the "persistent" fern.
While scientists have theír problems in
dassífying sorne fossíl ferns, the fern
kínd of plant ís found very "early" in
the geological record. Fern patterns like
those growing today cxisted in "Meso–
zoic rocks" which are dated as being
over 70 million years old.
The wcll-known ginkgo trce is
another "living fossil." W illiam Lee
Stokes, Professor of Geology at the Uni–
versity of Utah, points out that the
' '... Ginkf!.O bilobtt ( the maidenhair
tree), was prominent during the Meso–
zoic. Its remains have been found in
Mesozoic rocks of North America, Eur–
ope, Central America, Malaya, South
Africa, and Australia. Ginkgo may be
the oldest living genus of seed plants"
(Essentials in E,u·th Jl!Jtor). 1960, p.
266).
The ginkgo is only known today in a
cultívated form - preserved by the
Orientals. It is not believed to exist at
this time in the wild state. Yet, in the
past 100 million years assigned to its
existcnce by the cvolutionary concept, it
has undcrgone practically no change.
That is significant for a plant which
may be the "oldest living gcnus of sced
plants."
Why no change in such a plant
which has been given, by cvolutionists,
millions of years in which to cvolvc?
The animals and plants already men–
tioned are but a few of the many "Liv–
ing fossils." The Scquoia trees stand as
giants among plants and also as
giants among witnesses which have not
changed from the time they first appear
in the fossil record. The redwood tree
has remained unchangcd from its fossil
forms said to be over 20 million years
old.
The Ec¡uiseturn (horsctail) plant,
found practically all around the world,
is another "living fossil." Its kind has
supposedly existed for hund reds of mil–
lions of years - yet without evolving!
T he PLAIN TRUTH
The Psilotales are describcd as
"primitive plants, which havc appar–
ently persisted for millions of ycars in
more or less thejr present simple
state ..." ( College Botan y, Fuller &
Tippo, p. 748).
A spider found in IGng's Canyon in
Caltfornia is reported by tl1c American
Museum of Natural History as belong–
ing to the family Hypochilidae which is
believed to date back sorne 300 mil–
lion years. The shark SCttpanorhJllrhm
ou·steni has fossil relatives in upper
Cretaceous rocks (dated as over 70 mi I–
lion years old !) .
As more examples, wc could name
the water monitors, sea lizards, the
lampreys and haglishes, the hedgchogs ,
the Venus's-flower-basket ( f.¡¡p/ectella),
the mussel (a freshwater bivalve mol–
lusk), the turtle, the crocodilc, and a
host of others.
And, of COtJrSe, there's the lowly
algae. All Jife is supposed to have come
from such plants billions of ycars ago!
JVhy are the) sti/J tmchanged?
In short, many Jife forms which
are assumed to have a long evolutionary
history have representatives which could
be cited as examples of "living fossils"!
It is as though the whole classification
system of both plant and animal worlds
is bent upon DENYING thc theory of
evolution!
But ... WHY?
Why are so many forms of life
unchanged? Evolutionary scientists
admit they really don't know.
Stokes writes: "We marvel at thesc
vcterans of the struggle for existence
and seek to understand why they have
survived while their contemporaries
have long ago vanished. The secrets of
their success may be difficult to uncover
or to understand, for thcrc seems to be
no common characteristic that accounts
for their survival" ( Essentials of f.(/rfh
Histor). 1960, p. 431).
John Maynard Smith acknowledges:
"Unfortunately onc cannot give detailed
reasons in any particular case for such
long-continued survival with littl<: evo–
lutionary change" (The Theory of
Evoltttion, p. 237).
Theories abound which try to explain
why these creatures and plants have not
changed. But each theory utterly fails to
explain the whole picture.
J anuary 1971
Evolutionary Glasses
lt's time to take a good look at the
ovcr,tll picture - to analyze ll'hat the
problcm is and u·hy it exists.
Anyone knows that the world today
is filled with many and various types
or kinds of plants and animals -
from "simple," one-celled creatures to
extrcmcly "complex" forms such as man
hirnsclf. But man has set up a classifica–
tion systcm whereby he studies these
crcatures bascd upon a preconceivcd
standard.
Through the power of "evolutionary
reason," there is drawn up a gradual
transition of life forms. It goes some–
thing Jikc this. Lífc somehow began
f rom chemical compounds. After this
is assumed, life by some unknown
rneans evolvcs into one-celled creatures
( thought to be in tl1e sea) . These pro–
grcss or evol\'e into various types of sea
life - becoming fish in, again, sorne
unknown way. Then amphibians are
supposed to have sprung from the fish.
The reptiles then mysteriously carne
from the amphibians. Last, but not
lcast, thc birds ancl mammals are
bc:lic,•ed to havc evolved from the
reptiles, and finally along carne man.
But many "living fossils" clearly dis–
af!.ree with this proposed evolutionary
development sequeoce. These life forms
are so much like their fossil ancestor.r
that they dcfy explanation! They show
NO evolution.
Fu rthermore, evolutionists f rcely
admit that the majority of Ji fe forms
have dropped out of sight without
dcscendants! This simply mcans that
most fossils fotmd are not evm claimed
to be ancestors of higher forms of life!
Instead of evolution, we find over–
whelming fossil evidence of the suelden
appearance of new life forms and mass
dcstruction of many types which no
longer exist today. Send for our FREE
rcprints, "Worldwide Mammal Mas–
sacre" and "The Day the Dioosaurs
Died." Both of these articles provide
irref!ltabJe proof that mass destruction
of animal lif~, not slow evolution, has
occurrcd in the past history of earth.
"Living fossils" challenge scientists
and laymen alike to look again at the
thcory of evolution. It is pure folly to
blindly accept a theory that cannot
stand the test of life itself! O