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
Archaeological Evidence for Prophet Isaiah
Recently, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar and his team made a stunning discovery during excavations in Jerusalem. It provides strong support for the...

Diamonds and the Age of the Earth
Hello, I’m Dr. Vernon Cupps, ICR Research Associate and nuclear physicist. You’ve probably heard the familiar old saying, “Diamonds...

Stellar Superflare Reminder: Our Sun Is Special
Astronomers recently detected an enormous but short-lived increase in radiation from the nearby star Proxima Centauri.1,2 This radiation burst, known as...

Famous Physicist Stephen Hawking Dies at 76
Well-known physicist and atheist Stephen Hawking died at age 76 on March 14, 2018. He uniquely bridged the gap between ivory-tower academia and popular...

"Selfish Gene" Metaphor Misleads Evolutionists
A recent opinion piece posted on the Chemistry World website1 notes that Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene deeply motivated a generation...