The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Clifford A. Cuffey

Faunal Succession and Correlation

“Scientific creationists” reject faunal succession and the geologic time scale (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961; Morris, 1985; Bliss, 1988; Gish, 1995). That is an attempt to discredit evolution. If one can show that superposition, faunal s uccession, biostratigraphy, correlation, and the geologic time scale are invalid, then the geochronological successions of transitional fossils would be rendered invalid. Thus, “creation scientists” propose that the successive appearance of taxa in the fo ssil record is the result of ecologic zonation (Morris & Parker, 1987, p. 163-165), mobility of vertebrates (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 275-277; 279-286), and hydrodynamic (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961 p. 273, 274; Morris, 1985) or liquefaction so rting (Brown, 1996) during the “great flood.” Significant evidence (e.g., C. Cuffey, 1999) indicates that the rock record is definitely not the result of a “great flood,” and therefore any hypothesis about the origin of faunal succession involving the “great flood” is also false and irrelevant.

“Scientific creationists” assert that relative age dating of rocks uses circular reasoning based on the assumption of evolution (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 134, 136, 203, 205; Morris, 1978; Morris, 1985, p. 94-96, 134-137, 229, 232; Morris & Parker, 1987, p. 239-242; Bliss, 1988, p. 36). For example, Morris (1985, p. 136) stated, “Here is obviously a powerful system of circular reasoning. Fossils are used as the only key for placing rocks in chronological order. The criterio n for assigning fossils to specific places in that chronology is the assumed evolutionary progression of life; the assumed evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record so constructed. The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolutio n!”

That is false. Rocks are placed in proper chronological order by superposition (Van de Fliert, 1968; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 16-41, 73-91). Therefore, the succession of rock layers accurately represents the history of the earth . Thus, the fossil record contained within accurately represents the history of life on earth. If we collect fossils from stratigraphic sections where superpositional relationships can be easily determined solely on physical criteria, we find that there i s a definable succession of fossil taxa, each occurring in a limited stratigraphic interval. This pattern is an empirical observation that is both verifiable and repeatable. Within a local area, where the correlations between stratigraphic sections can be determined on physical criteria (geologic mapping, well log correlation), we find very similar successions of taxa at each of the sections (Lochman-Balk, 1971; Palmer, 1971; Key, 1990; Stitt, 1971, 1977). Such physical correlations are spectacularly illustrated in the Lower Ordovician of the Arbuckle Mountains of south-central Oklahoma and the Upper Pennsylvanian and Lower Permian of north-central Oklahoma and east-central Kansas, where one can literally walk out lithostratigraphic units for miles across the prairies. If we expand our area of investigation, we fin d that the same succession of fossils repeatedly occurs elsewhere. It can be demonstrated by regional geologic mapping and subsurface correlation that the rock layers containing each specific assemblage of fossils are physically correlative. This is spect acularly illustrated on the Colorado Plateau, where one can clearly trace the rock units by physical correlation.

This is the principle of faunal succession. It does not rely on untestable evolutionary assumptions. Faunal succession was first demonstrated by Smith in England, and by Cuvier and Brogniart in France, in the late 1700s and earliest 1800s (Dott & Prothero, 1994 p. 23-25). Evolution was not assumed; in fact, Cuvier believed that all life was created early, and d’Orbigny believed that different faunas were repeatedly created and wiped out by God (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 25, 2 6). Such observations preceded Darwin’s Origin of Species by more than 50 years.

Faunal succession can be readily applied in our own experiences. While growing up and attending college in Pennsylvania and Ohio, I collected fossils from all over the western Appalachian Valley and Ridge, the Appalachian Plateau, th e Great Lakes region, and the Ohio River valley. Throughout this region, rocks containing the trilobite Cryptolithus (Shimer & Shrock, 1944; Hoskins, 1969; Feldmann & Hackathorn, 1996) are always overlain by rocks with the brachiopods St egerhynchus, Whitfieldella, and Eospirifer, and halysitid corals (Shimer & Shrock, 1944; Hoskins, 1969; Feldmann & Hackathorn, 1996); which are always overlain by rocks with the brachiopods Paraspirifer and Mucrospirife r and the trilobite Phacops (Shimer & Shrock, 1944; Kesling & Chilman, 1975; Hoskins, 1969; Feldmann & Hackathorn, 1996); which are always overlain by rocks containing the bryozoan Archimedes and the blastoid Pentremites (Shimer & Shrock, 1944; Galloway & Kaska, 1957; McKinney, 1999). This succession is invariant; I have never observed Archimedes stratigraphically below, nor with, Cryptolithus, for example. This succession can be independently dem onstrated by physical stratigraphy to be in the same superpositional order. Based on local and regional scale geologic mapping, and subsurface correlation, the rock intervals from different regions and containing the same fauna can be demonstrated to be p hysically correlative. These genera are not in a specific evolutionary ancestor-descendant relationship and so the succession is definable without any underlying assumption of evolution. Faunal succession is an empirical observation, not an evolutionary a ssumption.

At a more detailed level, the development of Ordovician graptolite biostratigraphy in North America provides a good case study of biostratigraphic methods based on faunal succession (Berry, 1977), and one that is independently testab le (Goldman et al., 1994; Mitchell et al., 1994). Fifteen graptolite biozones have been recognized, defined, and refined by nearly a century of detailed work. Based on superpositional order, the same succession of graptolite species and zone s is recognized in New York (Ruedemann, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1925, 1947; Berry, 1962, 1963, 1970; Mitchell et al., 1994; Goldman et al., 1994), Quebec (Riva, 1969, 1974), Newfoundland (Kindle & Whittington, 1958; Whittington & Kindle, 1 963), west Texas (King, 1937; Berry, 1960; Bergstrom, 1978), Yukon (Jackson, 1964; Jackson & Lenz, 1962), and east-central Alaska (Churkin & Brabb, 1965). Moreover, isolated localities with only short stratigraphic sections can be compared with po rtions of the zonation defined elsewhere (Ross & Berry, 1963). No assumption of evolution was made. The fact that this same succession occurs repeatedly in different regions all over North America, and that the succession can be independently verified by anyone willing to recollect the localities, leads to the conclusion that geochronologic correlation based on biostratigraphy is valid.

This conclusion can be independently tested. The Middle Ordovician Trenton Group and Utica Formation of New York contain three of the graptolite zones and also contain numerous K-bentonite beds (Goldman et al., 1994; Mitchell et al., 1994). Because the K-bentonite beds are volcanic ash-falls, they represent geologically instantaneous isochrons. Furthermore, trace element geochemistry of their contained volcanic glass distinguishes each K-bentonite bed, assures proper co rrelation, and establishes a geochronologic framework to which the graptolite zones can be compared (Goldman et al., 1994; Mitchell et al., 1994). Indeed, the graptolite zone boundaries are parallel with the K-bentonite beds, therefore indep endently corroborating graptolite zones as time-parallel (Goldman et al., 1994; Mitchell et al., 1994). This independently demonstrates the validity of biostratigraphy on a local scale, and corroborates its use as a method of geochronologic correlation.

Based upon similar detailed biostratigraphic correlations, augmented with physical stratigraphic correlations, mapping, and subsurface correlations, it has long been thought that the Decorah (Minnesota), Spechts Ferry (Iowa, Wisconsi n, Illinois), Tyrone (Kentucky), Eggleston (Virginia), and Carters (Tennessee) formations, and the Chickamauga/Stones River/Nashville (Alabama, Georgia) groups throughout the eastern United States are correlative with each other. These formations each con tain a pair of thick bentonite beds (Deicke and Millbrig bentonites), within the upper part of the Phragmodus undatus conodont zone (Huff & Kolata, 1990). Geochemical fingerprinting with rare earth elements independently demonstrates that in ea ch locale, it is the same pair of bentonite beds. This independently demonstrates both that these formations are correlative and the validity of biostratigraphy on a local and regional scale (Huff, 1983; Kolata, Frost, & Huff, 1987; Huff & Kolata, 1990; Kolata, Huff, & Bergstrom, 1996). Moreover, biostratigraphic studies indicated that these formations were equivalent to the middle Caradocian of Estonia. There, the Big Bentonite is found at the base of the Keila Formation (Huff, Bergstrom, &am p; Kolata, 1992). Both the Millbrig and the Big Bentonite contain the same phenocryst composition, geochemical fingerprint, and Ar-Ar radiometric age (Huff, Bergstrom, & Kolata, 1992). This independently demonstrates the validity of biostratigraphy on a world-wide scale. Similar independent tests have been done on Cretaceous biozones (Wise, 1998, p. 165) and Cenozoic biozones (Evernden et al., 1964). In both cases, the biostratigraphic framework was found to be consistent with radiometric ages.

Morris (1985, p. 95) quoted Evernden et al. (1964), as stating “Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon ‘stage of evolution’ as the criterion for determining the chronologic relationships of faunas.” That appears to cast d oubt on the validity of the succession of Cenozoic land mammal faunas from western North America. That quote is, however, taken out of context and consequently misrepresents the conclusions of Evernden et al. (1964). In fact, the very next sentence in Evernden et al. (1964, p. 166), states that, “The physical dates presented in this paper demonstrate that temporal position of genera and species of fossil mammals in their accepted phylogenies is accurate at Mammal-Age degree of refinement.” Moreover, the overall conclusion of Evernden et al. (1964, p. 145), was that, “The K/A ages and the Mammal Age designations are in essentially perfect agreement, thus substantiating the usefulness of the K/A techni que throughout the Tertiary and supporting the conclusion that the defined Mammal Ages have true evolutionary significance. Correlations with European ages and Pacific Coast foraminiferal Ages through both K/A and fossil criteria are internally consistent .” And furthermore, “The correspondence of the two sets of data discussed in this paper is so close as to leave little doubt that the defined Land-Mammal Ages are time-sequential.”

Faunal succession directly contradicts the predictions of “creation science.” All taxa, including higher taxa from genera to phyla, do not appear simultaneously in the fossil record. The oldest occurrences of the animal phyla and cl asses range from the uppermost Precambrian (Phylum Cnidaria) through the Upper Jurassic (Class Aves; Benton, 1993). Likewise, the oldest occurrences of the classes of vascular land plants range from the Middle Silurian (possibly Upper Ordovician) through the Lower Cretaceous (Stewart, 1981). Furthermore, all taxa did not live contemporaneously as in a post-creation, pre-flood world. This is true not only if we examine species, but also higher taxa, from genera to phyla (Benton, 1993). Of special note here is the "Cambrian explosion." "Creation scientists" imply that the major taxa of invertebrates appeared suddenly, essentially contemporaneously, and fully formed in the Cambrian (Gish, 1995, p. 54-69, 75; Morris, 1985, p. 80, 81; Morr is & Parker, 1987, p. 126-129). That is incorrect. In fact, the oldest occurrences of the major taxa of invertebrates range from the uppermost Precambrian through the Upper Ordovician (Boardman, Cheetham, & Rowell, 1986; Taylor & Larwood, 19 90; Benton, 1993; Gehling, 1986; McMenamin, 1987; Ausich, 1997; Ausich & Babcock, 1998). Even considering just those major taxa that first occur in the Lower Cambrian, the first occurrences are still successive within the Lower Cambrian, not simultan eous (Narbonne et al., 1987; Smith, 1990; Signor & Lipps, 1992; Mount & Signor, 1992; Rozanov & Zhuravlev, 1992; Jiang, 1992; Briggs & Fortety, 1992; Popov, 1992; Debrenne, 1992; Crimes, 1992; Sprinkle, 1992; Landing, 1988, 1989, 19 92, 1994; Landing et al., 1989; Bowring et al., 1993; Isachsen et al., 1994). Moreover, the organization of at least some ecologic communities slowly developed throughout the Cambrian and Ordovician (Ausich & Bottjer, 1982, 1990; Bottjer & Ausich, 1986). When one examines Cambrian and Ordovician rocks, it is readily apparent that a typical, diverse "Paleozoic fauna," dominated by brachiopods, bryozoans, and crinoids, first occurs in Middle Ordovician rocks. Morris & Parker (1987, p. 127) and Bliss (1988, p. 39) presented a diagram of life on a Cambrian seafloor, including sea urchins and starfish. That is incorrect. The oldest starfish are Lower Ordovician (Benton, 1993, p.507) and the oldest sea urchins are Upper Ordovician (Benton, 1993, p.511). Bliss ( 1988, p. 41) stated, "Many complex invertebrates are found in Cambrian strata; the ones living today are similar." The second part of that statement is simply incorrect; Cambrian and modern invertebrates are easily distinguished.

Morris (1985, p. 227, 228) and Whitcomb (1986, p. 75, 76, 84), based upon their interpretations of Genesis, provided a list of predictions about the order of creation of organisms:

1. land plants were the first life forms created (Morris, 1985, p. 227, 228; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 75);
   
2. fruit trees before fishes (Morris, 1985, p. 227, 228; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 75);
   
3. birds before insects (Morris, 1985, p. 227, 228);
   
4. birds before reptiles (Morris, 1985, p. 227, 228; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 76);
   
5. birds contemporaneous with fishes (Whitcomb, 1986, p. 76);
   
6. insects after flowering plants (Whitcomb, 1986, p. 76); and
   
7. whales before land mammals (Whitcomb, 1986, p. 84).

Because the fossil record accurately represents the history of life, we can test these predictions.

1. First, the oldest land plants (mosses and vascular plants) are from the Middle Silurian (possibly the Upper Ordovician) and are definitely not the oldest fossils (which are cyanobacteria from the Archaean; Benton, 1993, p. 779, 781; Stewart, 1981; Dot t & Prothero, 1994, p. 195, 286-288).
   
2. Second, the oldest fishes (all classes of fishes) are definitely older than the oldest fruit trees (angiosperms); the oldest occurrences of the various fish classes ranges from Upper Cambrian to Lower Devonian (Benton, 1993, p. 574, 584, 589, 590, 594 , 611-613) whereas the oldest fruit trees are Lower Cretaceous (Stewart, 1981; Doyle, 1977).
   
3. Third, the oldest insects (middle Lower Devonian; Benton, 1993, p. 365) are definitely older than the oldest birds (upper Upper Jurassic; Benton, 1993, p. 717, 718).
   
4. Fourth, the oldest reptiles (either Lower Mississippian or Middle Pennsylvanian; Benton, 1993, p. 681, 683) are definitely older than the oldest birds.
   
5. Fifth, birds and fish do not appear in the fossil record at the same time; the oldest fish are older than the oldest birds.
   
6. Sixth, the oldest insects are definitely older than the oldest angiosperms (“flowering plants”); even if “flowering plants” are considered to include the cycadeoids (Upper Triassic; Stewart, 1981, p. 289), the insects are still older.
   
7. Seventh, the oldest land mammals (Upper Triassic; Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Benton, 1993, p. 740) are definitely older than the oldest whales (Lower Eocene; Gingerich et al., 1983). In every case, the predictions of “creation scientists” are contradicted by the fossil record. Both Morris (1985) and Whitcomb (1986) concede that the paleontological evidence does indeed contradict their predictions.

“Creation scientists” attempt to discredit faunal succession and evolution by discussing examples of “out-of-order fossils.” “Creation scientists” claim fossil human footprints, body parts, and artifacts have been found in pre-Plioce ne rocks (Helfinstine & Roth, 1994; Baugh & Wilson, 1987, 1992; Brown, 1996, p. 22, 23, 43, 61, 62). A thorough discussion of each is beyond the scope of this article. In every case that I was able to check, these remains are demonstrably not huma n, but instead either dinosaur footprints (Weber, 1981; Cole et al., 1985; Hastings, 1985; Godfrey, 1981, 1985; Kuban, 1986), fish teeth (Hastings, 1995), inorganic rock features (Conrad, 1981), or hoaxes (Lippard, 1989; Weber, 1981; Godfrey, 1985) . Moreover, some of the artifacts are obviously modern tools dropped or buried in ancient sediment or rock (Lippard, 1989; Cole, 1985). There is no credible evidence of humans living prior to the Pliocene. Instead, there is abundant evidence indicating ho minids evolved during the Pliocene (Johansen & Edgar, 1996; Lewin, 1993).

“Creation scientists” claim that Precambrian rocks overlying Cretaceous rocks (by thrust faulting) in Glacier National Park of western Montana render superposition and faunal succession unreliable (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 180 -200). They stated “...we feel warranted in rejecting the whole concept of over-thrusting, at least when applied on the scale of the so-called Lewis and Hart Mountain Thrusts...” That is incorrect. Thrust faults, including the Lewis Overthrust, can be ide ntified by geologic mapping and other physical criteria (Van de Fliert, 1968; Allmendinger, 1992).

Bliss (1988, p. 49) stated that Eohippus (=Hyracotherium) has been found with Equus in surface strata, thereby discrediting the evolution of horses. No references are given, no localities are given, no museum specimen numbers are given, no illustrations are given, and no precise stratigraphic information is given (the term surface strata is ambiguous; does he mean soil or any of the Phanerozoic rock formations cropping out at th e surface?). Thus his claim is not credible. According to Simpson (1951) and MacFadden (1992), Hyracotherium is not found in the same strata with Equus. Gish (1992, p. 36) stated that, “The most recent fossil of an armored dinosaur (buried i n the ice in Antarctica), was found in 1988 by an expedition to the South Pole.” This statement is false; dinosaurs have been found in Cretaceous sedimentary rocks in Antarctica, but not ice (Wise, 1998, p. 171).

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

Send us e-mail and we will get back to you as soon as we can.