The 21 May, 2008, internet issue of the Daily Telegraph carried a report titled “Missing link fossil settles frog evolution debate.”
The 21 May, 2008, internet issue of the Daily Telegraph carried a report titled “Missing link fossil settles frog evolution debate.” The report concerned an amphibian fossil originally unearthed in Texas in the USA in 1995, recently rediscovered and re-examined in the museum where it had been stored and described in the journal Nature. Attempts were made in the article to depict the fossil in question as evidence for the supposed evolution of frogs, and it was suggested that with this discovery the debate over the alleged evolutionary origins of the group including frogs and salamanders had finally come to an end.
One fact regarding this claim needs to be clarified right away. The portrayal of the fossil in question as evidence for the theory of evolution stems from the evolutionist dogma adopted by the researchers examining the fossil right from the outset. In fact, the fossil constitutes no evidence for the supposed evolution of frogs. In addition, the role of missing link ascribed to it is still a matter of debate among evolutionists, and by not mentioning these matters the Daily Telegraph is failing to be objective.
The latest evolutionist fantasies regarding the origin of frogs
The fossil, estimated to have lived some 300 million years ago and known as Gerobatrachus hottoni, was described as being 12 cm in length. The reason why evolutionists regard this fossil as an “intermediate form” is that its backbone and teeth share characteristics with those of frogs and salamanders.
The main reason for the Darwinist urgent desire and eagerness to portray this creature as an intermediate form is, as in every other sphere, the impasse they find themselves in regarding the origin of frogs. Jason Anderson has made an open admission of this in Nature magazine, which carried the report in question: “The origin of extant amphibians (Lissamphibia: frogs, salamanders and caecilians) is one of the most controversial questions in vertebrate evolution, owing to large morphological and temporal gaps in the fossil record.”.
Since both are amphibians, it is of course perfectly normal for there to be similarities between frogs and salamanders. Darwinists’ aim is to misuse this evident resemblance in order to depict non-existent intermediate fossils as actually existing and to impose the intermediate fossil falsehood, which is unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever, on the public. Another classical psychological technique was also employed, with a frog fossil dating back millions of years and identical to frogs alive today being used as a propaganda tool by people unable to abandon Darwinist ideology. The fact is, however, that the fossil actually refutes evolution.
Moreover, the fossil in question has also altered assumptions regarding the time frame established in respect of the frog evolution scenario. Researchers interpreting data obtained from previous molecular comparisons in the light of evolutionist preconceptions hypothesise that the supposed evolution of frogs took place between 357 and 308 million years ago. Yet the fossil in question has led to the evolutionary split in question being pulled back between 275 and 240 million years. This is a familiar example of datings being pulled back, something constantly being brought up Darwinists, who in fact have no other alternative but to do so.
The evolutionist impasse on the origin of frogs
The subject of the origin of frogs represents one of the greatest dilemmas facing the theory of evolution. The evolutionist depiction of the fossil in question as a missing link stems from their need to cover up that impasse. It must first be made clear that frogs living millions of years ago had the same characteristics as those living today. All the fossil specimens unearthed to date make that crystal clear.
Darwinists maintain that fish represent the supposed ancestors of amphibians. Yet they have no findings with which to verify these claims. On the contrary, all the scientific findings show that there are huge anatomical differences between the two groups and that it is impossible for one to be descended from the other. One of these scientific findings is the fossil record, according to which, the three main amphibian classes emerged suddenly.
There are no intermediate forms to connect amphibians, which include frogs and salamanders, and fish, their supposed evolutionary forerunners. Robert L. Carroll, author of the book Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, admits this fact, albeit reluctantly, in the words: "The early reptiles were very different from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet." (R. L. Carroll. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988. p. 4)
In the same book, Carroll also comments:
When they first appear in the fossil record, both frogs and salamanders appear essentially modern in their skeletal anatomy. … frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very different from one another in skeletal structure and ways of life, both now and throughout their known fossil record … we have found no fossil evidence of any possible antecedents that possessed the specialized features common to all three modern orders. (R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 180-182)
The Daily Telegraph is hiding the debates on Gerobatrachus hottoni from its readers
The article in the Daily Telegraph said nothing about the debates on the Gerobatrachus hottoni fossil and attempted to portray biased evolutionist hypotheses as a scientific reality. It is clear that attempts are being made to propagandise the fossil in question as a “missing link.” In fact, the fossil has done nothing to resolve the evolutionist dilemma regarding the origins of the frog, and the characteristics ascribed to it are still a controversial subject among evolutionists.
For example, on the National Geographic News web site, John Bolt, an expert on amphibian and reptile fossils, states that it is hard to say that this animal is the common ancestor of frogs and salamanders. Additionally, he states that we have only one specimen of the species, and that parts of its skeleton are missing. Bolt concludes that he is unable to definitively state that this animal is a representative of the common ancestor of the frog and the salamander.
The attempt to cover up the heavy blow that the Gerobatrachus fossil has dealt to evolutionists
The Daily Telegraph is hiding from its readers the fact that the fossil it seeks to portray as evidence for the theory of evolution actually possesses attributes that refute evolution. In fact, this fossil exhibits no “intermediate” characteristics at all in terms of anatomical features. On the contrary, this fossil dating back many millions of years exhibits the same features as those of frogs living today. Bolt reveals his own amazement in the face of this fossil, which reveal that the basic structure of frogs has remained unchanged for millions of years, in the words: “At this point I would say it is by no means certain that this is representative of a common ancestor to frogs and salamanders,”
Conclusion:
As we have seen, this fossil, which has been depicted as the ancestor of the frog, actually represents the oldest known specimen of frogs that were living hundreds of millions of years ago and has the same basic features as frogs living today. This proves that frogs never evolved at all, that they have existed as frogs for hundreds of millions of years, and that, in other words, they were created in the same forms as they have today.
Our advice to the Daily Telegraph and its science correspondent Roger Highfield is that they should report the evidence in an objective manner, rather than in the light of evolutionist preconceptions and dogmatism.
