Zoology vs. Evolutionism

In 2003 evolutionist A.G. Fisher admitted, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown."1 A well-known zoology text2 by three evolutionists reveal the limits of what is really known about the origin of animals—

Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists (p. 240).

... one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans in the evolutionary picture (p. 242).

The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure (p. 275).

Any ancestral or other related group that would shed a clue to the phyletic [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct
(p. 317).

No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism [segmentation] and the coelom [a fluid-filled cavity], although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years (p. 365).

What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids [earthworms]? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate (p. 365).

Controversy on phylogeny [evolution] within the Chelicerata [arthropods] also exists ... (p. 379).

The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle
(p. 399).

The phylogentic [evolutionary] position of the lophophorates [invertebrates] has been the subject of much controversy and debate (p. 447).

Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms [sea stars] are still obscure (p. 450).

Hemichordate phylogentic [evolution] has long been puzzling (p. 476).

... zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions (p. 485).

However, the exact phylogentic [evolutionary] position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear (p. 480).

The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor (p. 499).

Let me suggest that biology majors tape this article to the inside cover of your text so you may see where science leaves off and macroevolution begins.

 

_____________________________

1. Fisher, A., 2003 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, fossil section.
2. Hickman, Roberts, and Larson, Zoology, W.C. Brown, 1997.

Cite this article: Frank Sherwin, M.A. 2004. Zoology vs. Evolutionism. Acts & Facts. 33 (8).

The Latest
TESTIMONIALS
Our Culture’s Deepest Needs
Hi, I’m Christy Hardy, and I serve as an editor at ICR. Our country has so many needs and worthy causes. How do we decide which nonprofit organizations...

NEWS
Intact Starch Granules in "Ancient" Plant Fossil
by Jeffrey Tomkins and Timothy Clarey* Fossils keep revealing biomolecules that should be completely deteriorated and disintegrated if they are...

TESTIMONIALS
Refuting Ape-Men Myths
I’m Brian Thomas, Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. My wife and I have five college-age kids. We look forward to the day...

NEWS
Horned Dinosaurs Created as One Kind
A recent paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B may have inadvertently confirmed what the Bible revealed to us all along: Kinds only...

NEWS
Homo naledi Bones Not Ritually Buried
Since Lee Berger and his team announced their discovery of Homo naledi,1 they have been claiming that the bones found in the Dinaledi Chamber, South...