This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

The transformist illusion

We must insist on the term transformation rather than evolution, because trans-formation (the movement from one form to a different form) is precisely what is being postulated by the evolutionist hypothesis.

What we actually find, as is well known, are separated species with no transitional examples to speak of. Yes, there are fish that use fins to crawl on land, but there is nothing in this example that suggests the beginnings of an arm. Despite the exceptional behavior it displays, its qualities coincide perfectly with those of the rest of its kind. It must be insisted that eccentricities do not prove special differentiation except to the most credulous and suggestible, and those searching for affirmation are the most suggestible of all personalities.

We have, then, a great variety of species but no legitimate transitional forms to connect them and to prove that species is capable of fluidity; all that we do have is ample evidence that simple variation is possible and that all possibilities must, as a metaphysical necessity, express themselves. The fish crawling on land is one such possibility and so its manifestation is not at all puzzling.

In spite of this it is postulated that not only did transitions, or rather transformations, occur between very similar species, but that they occurred between reptiles and birds, and so on. But we still must insist that the specific articulation observed in, for example, the jaws of a bird, not to mention its unique hearing apparatus, are plainly of an entirely different ‘plan’ than what is found in reptiles. Even an example like the famous Archaeopteryx is, from a qualitative point of view, plainly a bird. Nothing in its structure offends the basic special qualifications that indicate this.

Share This