I feel that my book, The Spinosauridae, sums up how I feel about evolution so here is that chapter:

Evolution

Introduction

            I have decided to devote a chapter of this book to evolution in a whole. The original hypothesis of evolution came about when Charles Darwin was on the HMS Beagle. On this ship he deserted God and attempted to tell the story of creation excluding God. Although the base of modern “scientific” thinking has dramatically changed since then, the nitty-gritty of evolution has basically stayed the same.

There are two ‘kinds’ of evolution. The first, macroevolution, is what most think of when they hear ‘evolution’. It is the hypothesis that all organisms today have a common ancestor and that one animal can ‘evolve’ or ‘change’ into a completely different animal. The second, microevolution, is the theory that all animals are capable of changing (not so much evolving, in the common sense of the word), through genetic mutation, into a very similar species. I believe strongly in microevolution but strongly oppose macroevolution, as is discussed below.

Macroevolution

            I have already discussed the basics of macroevolution in the previous chapter so now I am going to debunk some of the more fundamental ingredients to this hypothesis. The first is the geological column. Scientists will try to tell you that the lower down into the geological column you go, the more primitive the organisms.

Now, before going further, I would like to make note than no animal is primitive. All are more complex than anything man could ever dream of creating. That’s all.

As I was saying; if you go higher on the geological column, the organisms should generally be more complex. This is inconclusive, however. Consider this; at least ninety-five percent of all fossils are mollusks. These mollusks are found throughout the entire geological column. Of the remaining five percent, ninety-five percent of that are marine vertebrates, particularly fish. Of that remaining five percent, 95 percent are insects. The remaining five percent of these fossils are reptiles, plants, and mammals. Dinosaurs make up a tiny fraction of this. At the least, I would say that this is inconclusive. So, ignoring the vast majority of fossils found and extracting only the information wanted, it sure could seem like the evidence points to macroevolution. Assuming that the geological column does get older as it gets deeper (we don’t actually know this), and assuming that organisms do get more complex as the layers get higher, than the geological column could very well be evidence for macroevolution. Also, it is very likely (I believe so) that the geological column was formed over a short time during Noah’s flood, as where many layers during the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption. When it comes down to it, it’s your choice, but a lot must be assumed, and it may depend on what your previously conceived ideas were. Some would continue to persist in saying that macroevolution were still possible, but that is their personal rejection of a creator and will, in the end, be their own downfall. (Was that out loud?)

            Another major problem for macroevolution is the fact that there aren’t any intermediate forms. No ‘missing links’ you might call them for any organisms. Sadly, scientists teach there are such creatures, but I am about to explain why some of these are not intermediate forms.

            Firstly, probably the most common illustration you will see demonstrating stages in evolution is that of the horse. It starts with Eohippus, to Mesohippus, to Merychippus, to Pliohippus, to Equus (the modern horse). Studying the skulls and leg bones only, would show you that they do appear to evolve, one into the other. But looking at the rest of the skeleton will tell you that these are the only bones that seem to show this. The ribs, vertebrae, etc. show no gradual changes.

            Another problem for evolutionists is that all five of these animals are found in variously different parts of the world, suggesting that they had evolved separately (looking at it from an evolutionists point of view).

            The last and, in my opinion, the greatest problem with this sequence is the fact the most ‘primitive’ of these animals, Eohippus, should be in the lowest geological column, while the most ‘advanced’, Equus, should be in the highest. Both these animals are found in the same rock layers together! Surprise, surprise. And although they continue to show this in museums around the world, the evolutionists already know the problems with this sequence. Dr. Niles Eldredge, the curator at the American museum of Natural History and a believer in Macroevolution states the following.

“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in his museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable…” (As quoted in Exploring Creation With Biology, by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell, 1998, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.  p. 289)

            There have been innumerable claims on ape/human missing links but most even the evolutionists have declared inaccurate. One, though, has stood longer than the rest. Called Australopithecus afarensis, it is evident from the hip that the animal could stand upright. Of course, even modern chimps can stand upright. And, as would be expected, the Australopithecus knuckles showed that it walked on them just as much as a modern chimp. But once again, when it comes down to it, it will depend upon your preconceived ideas.

            There are, of course, many other claims for intermediate links such as Archaeopteryx, numerous hominids (as the evolutionists refer to them as), and lobe-finned fishes but none have ever proven to be valid and none will. Yet, I can not say that they are definitely not intermediate forms. The only thing that can make up your mind is your previously conceived ideas, or the acceptance of Jesus’ loving gift of eternal life.

Microevolution

Microevolution is obvious and all around us. During the Industrial Revolution, as the amount of pollution to the air raised, the bark of some of the trees turned sooty black from the filth. The white moths with black speckles that lived in the forest where soon appearing black with white speckles. Obviously the white ones where more noticeable to predators and were devoured more often than those with darker markings. Before long, the dark moths where breeding with dark moths making even darker moths, which produced even darker moths, and so on. The gene for light colored moths was lost.

This happens often, as was the case with the Galapagos finches. During a drought, only the finches with beaks most able to eat a secondary diet of insects rather than seeds could survive and live on to become a new species (as scientists classify them). It is not evolution, as some may suppose, but natural selection. The finch has not become an eagle (although some have become entirely carnivorous due to the curse), or a dinosaur, or anything else but, instead, it has stayed a finch, as should be expected.

It is a loss of genetic information; the moths lost the gene of light coloration, certain finch populations lost the gene for the regular finch beak. This can happen, not only through natural selection, but also through mutations, as was probably the case with many of the finches.

Comments

            My final comments on evolution have to do with dinosaurs (finally). Were dinosaurs feathered? I can blatantly tell you that no dinosaur has been found with feathers; yet. Although, many have been found with fuzz running down their backs it could have been anything; fur (that is an interesting thought), braces to hold the backbone rigid, or even a new material; a form of bristles. Three animals, claimed as dinosaurs and definitely feathered, have been discovered and claimed as missing links.

Archaeopteryx (mentioned earlier) had fully formed feathers, toes that could move back and wrap around a branch (like modern birds), entirely functional wing muscles for flight, and overall birdlike. Although it had teeth, so do other modern birds and this proves nothing.

            The second ‘dino-bird’ is Confuciusornis, a 100% bird by all means except the claws on its wings (Archaeopteryx also shares this feature). But many birds today also have claws on their wings such as the hoatzin, the ostrich, and others.

            Lastly, Caudipteryx, I believe, is a bird, but I have done little research on this animal and I might even say it is completely unique in itself and is neither bird nor dinosaur. God did create many strange creatures. But it did have fully formed feathers and I admit (depending on the artist) it can look dinosaur like. But so can the previously described animals if they are illustrated to appear more reptilian than not. Fossils can tell us a lot about dinosaurs…but art fills in the rest. I love being an artist.

            My last point would be that many dragon sightings, cave drawings, and dragon descriptions of the past point to Dinosaurs and people living side by side together. The synonymy of dinosaurs and dragons is all too evident to me.

If you have any questions about the previous chapter extracted from my book, please don't hesitate to ask. Here are my references for this chapter: