What are living beings in terms of the transitional fossil form put forward as evidence for evolution?

Dear Brother / Sister,

10.3. INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS*
Put Forward as Evidence of Evolution

It is claimed by the view of evolution that all living beings evolved over time with the differentiation of a single cell. As evidence for this claim, it was suggested that transitional forms between species would be found. However, for almost 150 years, no example has been put forward to confirm that claim.

Organisms that are assumed to have completed the missing links of the evolutionary chain and that resemble the organism preceding it in terms of some characteristics and the organism succeeding it in terms of some characteristics are called “intermediate form” or “transitional form”.

All scientific studies show that every living being species was created directly with their own genetic potentials, abilities and characteristics.

It used to be claimed that those intermediate forms came into being gradually over time. If all living beings had come from one another in the form of a chain originally from a single cell, there should have been a lot of organisms with the characteristics of intermediate forms in the form of fossils. For example, it is claimed that frogs came into being from fish gradually. There should have been a being with the intermediate form characteristic in this transition; it should have started as 90% fish, 10% frog, continued as 80% fish, 20% frog, and finally ended as 10% fish 90% frog. Such a being that should have occurred at each phase should have had a similar spouse to reproduce and they should have undergone the same phases, reproducing a gene pool.

There should be tens of intermediate forms for the emergence of a different species from a living group by changing as it is claimed. When you think of this for the whole realm of living beings, this number increases to hundreds of thousands. However, there is not even a single fossil that everybody can agree on.

In this regard, in order to mislead the public and to condition them to a certain ideology, the press periodically reports that a fossil has been found and that it is the ancestor of man that lived in the past. Of course, no one has the opportunity to investigate the accuracy of that claim.

Another way of misleading the society on this issue is to show a freak of any kind, that is, a strange creature, and to suggest that the intermediate forms are like that. They have no scientific value. This type of behavior is similar to pulling a rabbit out of the hat by an illusionist.

Let us review living beings in terms of transitional fossil form.

10.3.1- Transition from Protozoa to Invertebrate Metazoa

The first living beings on earth were seen in the Precambrian era about 1.5 billion years ago. They were unicellular algae from Protozoa. This group of living beings is still present in the form and structure in which it first appeared on earth. In the Cambrian era, which came after the Precambrian era, living beings did not display a gradual transition from unicellular to multicellular, as evolutionists claim. The multicellular organisms seen in this period had no similarity to one another and did not show any similarity to their predecessors.

The sudden emergence of multicellular organisms is called “the Cambrian explosion”. Among those living beings are invertebrate with highly complex structure like sponges, corals, Trilobites, Brachiopods, Mollusks, Echinoids and Arthropods.¹

Guttman states in his biology book he published in 1999 that there was no relation or connection between unicellular microorganisms in the Precambrian era and these highly complex invertebrates in the Cambrian era.²

On the other hand, researchers such as Axelrod, George and Kay indicate that Cambrian invertebrates suddenly appeared on Earth at the end of the Precambrian period without a transition form^,.^3,4

On the earth, unicellular algae were first seen about 1.5 billion years ago in the Precambrian Era. After that, multicellular Brachiopods, Mollusks, Echinoids and Arthropods came into being suddenly in the Cambrian Era.  There is no fossil form that shows transition between those groups of living beings.

Richard Monestarsky states that complex life suddenly appeared on earth as follows:

“The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. These arrivals coincided with the beginning of the Cambrian era. The seas and the earth filled with the first complex creatures began in this period”.⁵

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist British zoologist, points out that complex creatures suddenly appeared:

     “The invertebrate groups in the Cambrian strata seem to have occurred there without any history of evolution. This sudden appearance definitely pleases creationists”.⁶

10.3.2- Transition from Invertebrates to Vertebrates⁷

In general, invertebrates have soft parts inside and hard shells outside. It is different in vertebrates. They have a skeleton inside.

There were vertebrates such as jawless vertebrates (Cyclostomata), cartilaginous fish (Elasmobranchii) and bony fishes (Teleostomi) at the end of the Ordovician period, which was observed 430 million years ago and after the Cambrian period and at the beginning of the Devonian age 330 million years ago.

Omma­ney states in his book called “The Fishes” and Romer in his book called “Vertebrata Paleon­to­logy” that there is no fossil to provide a connection between those fish and the invertebrates that are regarded as their ancestors.⁸

Evolutionist paleontologist Gerald Todd points out that there is no transition form between fish groups and states the following:

“All three classes of bony fish appear in fossil strata simultaneously and all of a sudden; they do not show any connection with any groups that can be their ancestors”.⁹

Gordon Taylor states that there is no transition form between finned and limbed creatures:

 “There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collection of the world”.¹⁰

10.3.3-Transition from Fish to Frogs

The lobe-finned fish (Rhipidistian crossopterygian) and the tailed frog (Ichthyostega) are introduced as a transitional form between fish and frogs (Figures 1a and 1b).

It was assumed that the Rhipidistian crossopterygian, called the Lobe-finned Fish or Coelacanth, lived for a certain period and produced frogs as the environmental conditions changed, and that it had disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous period, approximately 70 million years ago. In his book “The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Prehistoric Animals”, Hublin states that the fish Latemariachalumnea , which is in the same group as this fossil form, was caught in several places included in Mozambique in 1935, in Madagascar in 1939, in the Comoros in 1953, and in Africa in 1955, which eliminates its feature of being a transitional form¹¹(Figure 2).

Figure 1. a) The picture of the lobe-finned fish (Rhipidistian crossopterygian) regarded as the ancestor of the tailed toad b) The picture the tailed toad (Ichthyostega) drawn based on the data.

Robert Carroll, points out in his book called "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution" that there is no transitional form between fish and frogs as follows: 

     “We do not have fossils that have the property of transitional form between the first frogs and fish”.¹²

Edwin Colbert and Morales point out that the frogs of the past and the present are of the same structure:

“There is not a single piece of evidence to show that the Paleozoic (First Time) frogs have a common ancestor. The oldest known frogs are similar to those of today”.¹³

Figure 2. Latimaria from the lobe-finned fish (Coelacanth) group.

10.3.4- Transition from Frogs to Reptiles

Seymouria and Didactes, which lived at the beginning of the Permian Period, are suggested as the transitional forms between frogs and reptiles. However, in the light of today’s knowledge, we see that frogs and reptiles lived together in the Carboniferous Period. Therefore, it is not possible to explain both the emergence of reptiles from frogs and the existence of frogs with the deterioration of environmental conditions during the same period. As a matter of fact, Seymouria is considered by some as a “very developed real frog”, not the “ancestor of reptiles.¹⁴

Robert Carroll, points out that there is no fossil showing the transition from frogs to reptiles in his book called“Problems of the Origins of Reptiles”:

     “We do not have a single fossil specimen that could be the true ancestor of the first reptile. Therefore, the absence of such an intermediate form invalidates the claim that there is a transition from frogs to reptiles”.¹⁵

 10.3.5- Transition from Reptiles to Birds

It is suggested that reptile scales turned into feathers during the transition from the reptile to the bird. However, some evolutionists point out that this view is wrong. Barbara, one of them, evaluates the issue as follows:

“Feathers have a very complex structure … There is no form with the feature of transition between scales and feathers”.¹⁶

Brush is of the view that feathers appeared suddenly; he states the following:

“Feathers emerge suddenly in the fossil record as a characteristic of birds only”.¹⁷

Feduccia states that the transition from the reptile to the bird is impossible:

     “Transition from the reptile to the bird is not possible in terms of biophysics”.¹⁸

Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx is suggested as the transitional form between reptiles and birds.A fossil was found among the Upper Jurassic limestones (Figure 7.4).

Figure 3. a- Archaeopteryx fossil, b- Estimated form of archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx lived approximately 140 million years ago (Figure 3).

     The reptile-like features of archaeopteryx, which is usually in bird form, can be listed as follows:

a) The presence of claws on the edge of the wings.

b) The presence of teeth in the mouth.

c) The presence of the spine in the tail.

It is stated in the work titled “Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories” that Archaeopteryx is not the passage form between reptiles and birds and the following points are put forward about the issue:

1-The Hoatzin bird (Opisthocomus hoatzin), now living in South America, and the Tourako bird of Africa (Touracocoryhaix of the Musophogidae family) also have claws at the edge of their wings in their youth, and the spine structure of the Hoatzin bird is similar to that of the archaeopteryx (Figure 4). There are also three claws on the wings of the Ostrich living in South America.¹⁹

2-The archaeopteryx has an asymmetrical feather structure like that of modern birds. This is regarded as evidence for its flying.

3-It was claimed that the archaeopteryx did not have the necessary breastbone to fly. The last seventh Archaeopteryx fossil that was found revealed the presence of the breastbone.

Paleontologists Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou of the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute in China found a bird fossil, which they called “Confuciusor” in 1995. Confuciusor, which was the same age as the archaeopteryx, about 140 million years old, had no teeth, and its beak and feathers had the same features as those of modern birds. The skeletal structure of this bird, which is the same as the birds of today, had claws on its wings just like the archaeopteryx.

Figure 4 .Hoatzin bird, which has claws on its wings.

Shipman states that the discovery of Confuciusor refuted the thesis that archaeopteryx was the ancestor of birds.²⁰

A bird named Liaoningornis, which is 130 million years old, was found by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in China in 1996. Liaoningornis, which is 10 million years younger than the archaeopteryx, is reported to have a breastbone that holds the flight muscles, which are also found in the birds of today; the only difference is that the birds of today have teeth in their mouths. Feduccia also states that Liaoningornis invalidates the claim that “the origin of birds is dinosaurs”.²¹

Another fossil related to birds was found in the West Texas Desert. This two-piece fossil, which was evaluated by Sankar Chatterjee in 1984, is called “the first bird” (Protoavis) and is said to have lived 225 million years ago.²²

If it is considered that archaeopteryx lived 140 million years ago, it will be understood that the fossil discovered by Sankar Chatterjee lived 85 million years before archaeopteryx.

According to the claim of evolutionists archaeopteryx must have evolved from dinosaurs. However, in light of the recent fossils, some evolutionists do not accept archaeopteryx’s being the intermediate form. Alan Feduccia, who specializes in birds, states the following:

“I have studied bird skulls for twenty-five years. I do not see any similarities whatsoever between them and dinosaurs. The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century!”²³

There was a different claim regarding the archaeopteryx in the Punch magazine dated September 2, 1987. It is claimed in the article published by “William Hewison” that the feather marks belonging to the fossil of the archaeopteryx found in 1861 were put later by Richard Owen with a printing block. The common opinion about the archaeopteryx is that it is a toothed bird, that it lived for a certain period of life and that it disappeared later ^,,24,25,26.

As a matter of fact, some reptiles and frogs today have teeth, while others do not.

10.3.6-Transition from Reptiles to Mammals

Seymouria and didactes are regarded as the ancestors of reptiles. Synopsidae suborder, which is regarded as the pioneer of mammals, was seen on earth before those orders, which are regarded as the ancestors of reptiles. Therefore, it is impossible for reptiles to be the ancestors of mammals.²⁷

In his book titled “The Reptiles That Became Mammals”, Kemp insists that there are no transitional forms showing the transition from reptiles to mammals.

In his book called “Vertebrata Paleontology”, Romer points out that there is no fossil showing that bats (of flying mammals) come from reptiles.²⁸

Ommaney states that the bat fossils found between the aged strata are no different from those of today.²⁹

The evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of the Neo-Darwinist Theory, states in his work called “Life Before Man” that there is no intermediate form related to mammals:

     “The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts”.³⁰

10.3.7-The Horse is put forward as an Example to the Evolution of Higher Organisms

The changes that the horse underwent during its phylogeny are given as an example to the evolution of higher organisms. According to the claim of Weller, Eohippus, known as the “primitive horse”, which lived in the Eocene Epoch, had four toes on each forefoot and three on each hind foot; all of the toes pressed on the ground when it walked.³¹

According to Johnson, the third toe of the horse developed while the others were gradually reduced and disappeared. It is claimed that it was because the horses ate the young branches and leaves of the trees but later began to eat grass since the pastures became dominant beginning from the Miocene Epoch.

It is assumed that only by running fast can it be possible to be protected from the enemies in plains where the horses graze on the grassland; thus, the third toe developed and enlarged, causing the others to disappear. The toes other than the third toe atrophied and became useless and vestigial organs.³²

The Evaluation of the Evolution of the Horse

The decrease in the number of toes is attributed to the feeding style hence running and fleeing from the enemies.

The assumption, “If an organ is used, it will develop, and if it is not used, it will atrophy” is known as “Lamarck’s Principle”. It has been understood for the last 20 years that Lamarck’s principle was based on modification, that is, the transfer of the change in somatic cells to the youngs is impossible; however, it is transferred through a change in the gametes. Besides, through the same reasoning, it will be necessary to explain why many animals primarily rabbits that escape from their enemies did not undergo similar changes.

Wells states the following regarding the issue:

“Three years before Charles Darwin’s death in 1882, Yale University paleontologist Othniel Marsh published a drawing of horse fossils to show how modern one-toed horses had evolved from a small four-toed ancestor. His drawings, which included only foot bones and teeth, were supported by the addition of the skull and the drawings of horse fossils, and quickly found their way into museum exhibits and biology textbooks as evidence for evolution.³³

It is disputable whether the splint bones in the horse leg are vestigial organs because they have some functions. According to Cousins, the functions are as follows:

1. They provide strengthening for the horse’s leg.
2. They are attachment areas for several leg muscles..
3. They make a protective groove for the suspensory ligament that supports a horse’s weight.³⁴

Dunouy and Goldschmidt state that the single-toed horse existed on the earth in the Mesozoic Era, 130 million years ago, that is, long before the multi-toed horse. According to them, the first multi-toed horse appeared in the Eocene, 55 million years ago and the last generation of the multi-toed horse became extinct in the Miocene, about 25 million years ago^,35,36.

Boyce Rensberger, one of the evolutionist biologists, states that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

     “The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 150 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Therefore, they are not transitional forms but different forms with separate structures”.³⁷

Evolutionist Colin Patterson, one of the administrators of the British Museum of Natural History, expresses a similar view:

     “The exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago, which is still on exhibit downstairs, is nothing but a bad imaginary story. The evolution of the horse has been presented as ‘the great truth’ in hundreds of scientific books. However, what those people do is nothing but speculation”.³⁸

It is stated that the fossils that the equine evolution are based on the invented sequences of fossils, set out in order of size, belonging to different life forms that lived at different times in India, North America, South America and Europe. There is no consensus regarding the issue among the evolutionists. Various researchers have proposed more than 20 different equine evolution sequences. The only thing these sequences have in common is the belief that the first ancestor of the horse was a dog-like animal known as Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene Period some 55 million years ago. However, Hitching says, “Eohippus, which is presented as the “ancestor of the horse”, is in fact identical to the animal known as the “Hyrax”, which is still to be found in Africa today, which has nothing to do with the horse and bears no resemblance to it.³⁹

Gordon R. Taylor, an evolutionist, writes the following in his book, “The Great Evolution Mystery” about the sequences of horses:

     “Paleontologists failed to find the fossils related to the equine sequences put forward by evolutionists. The sequence of horses is presented as the only fully worked-out example regarding evolution, but it is not so. The line from Eohippus to today’s Equus is very erratic. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time^“.⁴⁰

It is understood that each species of the multi-toed horses is a separate kind and that they lived in a certain period and then became extinct... The ancestors of the single-toed horses are also single-toed.

10.3.8-The Past of Insects

Throughout the geological periods on Earth, different organisms and different living species emerged; some of them did not change at all and some of them survived until today with minor changes. Some lived for a certain period and disappeared.

Fossils of insects were found in materials like amber, volcanic ashes and coal. Since even the internal organs, tissues and cell structures were kept in very good condition in amber, they could be compared with the existing insects. In his book called , “Insects in Amber”, Brues states that there are no differences in shape between insects that were created 350 million years ago and the insects living today.⁴¹

However, some of the insects in the past were larger and bigger than their relatives today like big cockroaches and giant ants. One feature of insects is that they have very different forms. Therefore, it is difficult to identify from which source they may have formed. In his book called “The Evolution of Life”, Olsen draws attention to the fact that there is no information about how insects started flying.⁴²

10.3.9-General Evaluation about Transitional Forms

The theory of evolution explains the arrival of living beings on earth with “gradual emergence”. Living organisms must have slowly formed over time from simple to higher structures. Evidence of it will be fossils. When this view was put forward in the 1850s, the general idea was like that. However, since fossil materials to support this view could not be found in the course of time, evolutionists criticized this view. The famous British paleontologist Derek states the following:

“When we examine the fossil record in detail, we see groups that developed on earth suddenly, not through gradual evolution”.⁴³

The evolutionist Carlton expresses a similar view:

High organisms appeared on Earth gradually, depending on time. There can be only one explanation for it: The living beings that were suitable for the earth conditions that improved gradually were sent to the earth. In other words, sheep were created after grass and plants were created. The fossils proposed as intermediate or transitional forms do not have the feature of being intermediate forms.

“Did life on earth evolve slowly and gradually over time? The answer of the fossil record to this question is ‘no’”.⁴⁴

Tom from Oxford University says that there are no fossils showing the transition of species:

“According to the fossil record, many species emerged suddenly, remained unchanged for several million years and disappeared suddenly. There is no single fossil specimen showing the transition of species from one generation to another”.⁴⁵

Steven points out that there is no fossil evidence to confirm gradual evolution and states the following:

“The known fossil record has not been able to provide any fossil evidence that gradual evolution could be valid”.⁴⁶

Adler points out that intermediate form researchers are disappointed with what they have achieved and states the following:

“The more scientists look for inter-species forms, the more disappointment occurs”.⁴⁷

Mark, who is an evolutionist, states that species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly:

“Species form suddenly and disappear suddenly. This supports creationists who claim that species are created by Allah.⁴⁸

Gould, the evolutionist, of Harvard University states that the evolutionary family tree was drawn based on the imagination of evolutionists, not on the fossil record:⁴⁹

“The evolutionary family trees in our books are based on our design, not on the fossil record”.

Throughout the geological periods on Earth, different organisms and different living species emerged; some of them did not change at all and some of them survived until today with minor changes. Some lived for a certain period and disappeared.

One thing that draws attention here is the gradual appearance of high organisms on Earth depending on time. There can be only one explanation for it: The living beings that were suitable for the earth conditions that improved gradually were sent to the earth. In other words, sheep were created after grass and plants were created. The fossils proposed as intermediate or transitional forms do not have the feature of being intermediate forms. It has now been a general opinion that the fossils proposed so far are not sufficient and reliable material.

*It was published beforehand (ÂdemTatlı, Hasan Akan, İdris Görmez, İsmail Kocaçalışkan. Biyolojinin ve Kimyanın DilindenYaratılış. AkderYayını, 2018, p. 174-196).
1.Cloud, S. Pseudofossils, A Plea For Caution. Ge­ology. November. 1973, p. 123.
2.Guttman, B. S. Biology. Boston: WCB/ McGraw-Hill, p.718, 1999.
3.Axelrod, D. Early Cambrian Marine Fauna. Sci­ence. 1959, Vol. 128. p.7. 
4.George, T.N. Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective. Science Progress. 1960, Vol. 48, January, p.5.; Kay, M. and Colbert, H.E. Stratigraphy and Life History. New York. John Wiley and Sons. 1965, p.102.
5.Monestarsky, R. Mysteries of the Orient. Discover, April, 1993, p. 40.
6.Dawkins, R.The Blind Watchmaker. London,W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 229.
7.For more information: ÂdemTatlı. Evrim veYaratılış. Hilal Ofset Isparta,5^th impression, 2018. p. 316
8.Ommaney,F.D. "The Fishes.Life Nature Library." New York. 1964, s.60.; Romer,AS. Vertebrata Paleontology. Chicago Press. 1966, p.15-33.
9.Todd, G.T. Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual    Relationship. American Zoologist, Vol. 26, no: 4, 1980, p.757.
10.Taylor, G. R. The Great Evolution Mystery. Harper &Row, 1983, p.60.
11.Hublin, J. The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Prehistoric Anima1p. New York. 1984, p.120.
12.Carroll, L. R. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York W.H.Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 4, 138.
13.Colbert, E. H., & Morales, M. Evolution of the Vertebrates. New York, John Wiley and sons, 1991, p. 99.
14.Curtis, H. and Barnes, S. Invitation to Biology. 5^th impression New York: Worth Publishers, p.405, 1994.
15.Denton, M. Evolution. A Theory in Crisis. Burnett Books, London, 1985.
16.Barbar, J. Stahl. Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution. New York: Dover Publication, 1985, s.349-350.
17.Brush, A.H. On the Origin of Feathers. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Vol.9, 1996, s.131-33.
18.Anonymous. Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories. Geotimes. Vol. 41, 1996, s.7.
19.Grimmer, J.L. Natural Geographic. 1962, August. p.391.
20.Shipman, S. Birds do it...Did Dinosaurs? New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p.31.
21.Feduccia, A. Old Bird. Discover. 21 Mart,1997.
22.Time, 25 August1986, p.36.
23.Shipman, S. Birds do it...Did Dinosaurs? New Scientist, 1 February 1997, s.28.
24.Beddart, F.E.  The Structure and Classification of Birds. Longmans, Green and Ca., London.1989, p.160.
25.Gregory, W.K. New American Academy of Sci­ence. Annals, 1916, Vol.  27.p.31.
26.Nouy, L. Human Destiny. The New American Lib­rary. New York. 1947, p.58.; Swinton,W.E. In Biology and Comparative Physi­ology of Birds. Ed.By. A.J. Marshall Academic Press,New York, 1960, Vol. p.1
27.Kemp,T. The Reptiles That Became Mammals. New Scientist. 1982, Vol. 92.
28.Romer,AS. Vertebrata Paleontology. Chicago Press. 1966, s.303.
29.Romer,AS. Vertebrata Paleontology. Chicago Press. 1966, s.15-33.
30.Simpson, G. Life Before Man. New York, Time-Life Books, 1972, p. 42.
31.Weller, M. J. The Course of Evolution. New York. 1969, pp. 689.
32.Johnson,W.H., Laubenga, R. A. and De Lanney, L. E. General Biology. Third Edition. New York. 1965, 788 pp.
33.Wells, J. Ibid p. 181.
34.Cousins, F.W. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 1971, Vol. 8. S. 99.
35.Dunouy, L.Human Destiny.The New American Library. New York.1947, p.74.
36.Goldschmidt, R.B. American Scientist. 1952, Vol. 40.p.97.
37.Rensberger, B. Houston Chronicle, 5 November, 1980, CHAPTER 4, s.15.
38.Patterson, C. Harper’s.  February, 1984, p.60.
39.Hitching, F. The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong? New York.Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p.30-31.
40.Gordon, R.T. The Great Evolution Mystery. London, Sphere Books, 1984, p.230.
41.Brues, C.T. Insects in Amber. Scientific American. 1951, Vol.185. p.60.
42.Olsen,E.C. The Evolution of Life. The New Ame­rican Library. New York. 1965, p.180.
43.Derek, A. The Nature of the Fossil Record. Proceedings of British Geological   Association. Vol. 87, 1976, s.133.
44.Carlton, B. Statis:The Life in the Balance. Geotimes, Vol. 40, Mart 1995, s.18.
45.Tom, S.K. Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals. New York American Pres, 1982, s.363.
46.Steven, M. S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco. W.H. Freeman and C., 1979, s.39.
47.Adler, J. Who Doubts Evolution? New Scientist, issue 90,1981, p.831.
48.Mark C. The Revival of the Creationist Crusade. Maclen’s, 19 January, 1981, s.56.
49.Gould, S., J. EvriminDüzensizAdımları. Naturel History. May,1977, p.13.

Questions on Islam