Before answering this question, let me define the term "evolution" as I will be using it, lest I be misunderstood. Darwin used the term on a grand scale, and so will I. His concept of evolution proposed that all of life has come from a common ancestor. Thus over time, basic forms of life altered into other, totally different forms of life.
These large changes are in contrast to small-scale changes as we see expressed as varieties, adaptations, and genetic recombinations. These changes might not be trivial, but they are merely variations within a stable basic kind.
Much evidence exists for these small-scale adaptations. The claim by evolutionists is that over eons of time, small-scale changes will accumulate into large-scale evolution, and thus man descended from a fish. Needless to say, evidence for this is harder to produce.
For decades creationists have called attention to the fact that small changes do not lead to true evolution. From all we can observe in the present, there are genetic barriers to major changes. Mutations never add information to the DNA code, as would be necessary for major evolutionary advancement. Such changes may result in a loss of ability or structure and produce novel birth defects, but give no insight into the origin of finely tuned components.
Nor does it appear that large-scale evolutionary changes happened in the past, for the fossil record exhibits the same basic life forms as today. Many unique varieties are seen as fossils, and many interesting animals have gone extinct, but even evolutionists admit the dearth of transitional forms in the fossil record between basic kinds.
This lack of hard evidence for evolution has spawned a new discipline in evolution, that of scouring the creationist literature for any demonstrable error in an effort to put creation on the defensive and shift the focus off of evolution's many weaknesses. I am still being severely castigated on the Internet for not retracting an incidental statement I made about Donald Johanson and the authenticity of the knee joint of the famous australopithecine fossil "Lucy" ("Back to Genesis," November 1989). Johanson's statements, both publicly and in print were unclear and even though I no longer use that argument, I'm still not certain of the truth. The point is, even if the knee is actually part of "Lucy's" skeleton, she was still fully chimp-like.
A similar diversion tactic surrounded the article "What They Say" ("Back to Genesis," March 1999). An evolutionist's quote mistakenly used out of context was used to negate the entirety of the article and creationist claims regarding the lack of transitional forms. But the pointing out of a wrongly used quote still doesn't produce transitional forms documenting transformation of basic kinds! (The original articles and ICR's responses can be found at http://www.icr.org)
Evolutionists would have a more convincing case if they could produce firm supporting evidence. Since they can't, or at least haven't, they must resort to smoke screens such as these.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 1999. Does Convincing Evidence for Evolution Exist?. Acts & Facts. 28 (8).