Dock2

LIVING FOSSILS:
Darwin also assumed there would be continual improvement in the natural world.He wrote: "The
inhabitants of the world at each successive period in its history have beaten their predecessors in the
race of life� Old forms have been supplanted by new and improved forms of life, the products of
variation and the survival of the fittest.� However, some of the winners are what evolutionists call
�primitive� organisms: protozoa, sponges, marine worms and corals, which are supposed to have
been some of the earliest life-forms on the planet. Then there are survivors like the platypus � said to
be a �primitive� mammal. There are many other examples that knock Darwin�s theory of �continual
evolutionary progress� on the head�

The existence of hundreds of "living fossils" also
undermines Darwin's hypothesis. According to
evolutionists' own dating methods many living
organisms have not changed over supposedly vast
eons of time. This is non-evolution! The living
Horseshoe Crab (above left) is identical to fossils
(below left) which are said to be 500 million years
old. Many other insects, such as cockroaches and
dragonflies, have not evolved, although the fossil
forms were often much larger, even gigantic.
Insects preserved in amber also show that there
has been no evolution

One well-known example of a "living fossil" is the Coelacanth fish. It was believed to have been extinct
for at least 60 million years � that�s the age given to fossils. Then, in 1938, a live specimen was
caught in the Indian Ocean. Special stamps (below) were minted to commemorate this discovery.
Many more have been found since, and we now know it is not at all rare. Before it was discovered

alive, some evolutionists speculated that the Coelacanth was some kind of
"missing link" between fish and land animals,since it had bony fins, but it
actually lives in the deep sea. If evolution is an on-going process why has this
fish not evolved? Furthermore, why are there no fossils in younger rocks? Are
those �60 million years� an illusion?

It is clear that Darwin was wrong about older forms being "suppplanted by new and improved forms of
life," and that, in many cases, organisms have not "beaten their predecessors in the race of life."

COMPLEXITY:
Darwin knew that his theory depended upon everything, however complex, having evolved gradually
from "simpler" ancestors. He wrote, �If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down.� Although Darwin claimed to know of no such case, he lived before the
invention of powerful electron micropscopes,which have revealed an amazing world of hidden
complexity which he could never have dreamed of.

One example is ATP synthase (see diagram, right). Humans, and
other living organisms, have trillions of these tiny motors which
capture and transfer chemical energy in the cells of their bodies.
Each is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead, and rotates at
6000 r.p.m.! Dr Jerry Bergman writes: �This molecule is an
excellent example of irreducible complexity because it is
necessary in its entirety in order for even the simplest form of life
to survive.� (See: http://trueorigin.org/atp.asp)
There are numerous examples of organisms which defy a
Darwinian explanation for their origin, not all of them microscopic.