The Best Evidence for Evolution Was ALL Faked. DON’T Believe This Nonsense.

Añadido: 2026-06-04

[00:00:00]Do you see how this works? It used to be fact in science, [music] and if you didn't believe the experts, you were just some religious fundamentalist who was denying reality because of your commitment to believing in the magic man in the sky.

[00:00:13]But fast forward a few years, and what do we consistently see regarding some of the most iconic supposed missing links of the past [music] and present?

[00:00:35]The Greek philosopher Aristotle conceptualized a reality he termed the scala naturae, literally the ladder of nature.

[00:00:51]And he classified all living things in a hierarchy, supposedly based on the complexity each displayed and the soul that each possessed. Simple plants at the bottom, then animals, and finally humans at the top.

[00:01:06]But as Christianity became the dominant worldview in Western culture, this basic concept later became known as the great chain [music] of being.

[00:01:15]With God being placed at the apex of the created order with the understanding that Jesus Christ created all things as per Colossians 1:16.

[00:01:29]Alexander Pope [music] is credited with first using the phrase chain of being when he penned his philosophical poem, in iambic pentameter no [music] less, titled Essay on Man in 1734.

[00:01:42]And the following selection from it reflects the common belief of the day, including the God of the Bible as the creator of all things.

[00:01:52]Vast chain of being which from God began.

[00:01:57]Nature's ethereal, human, angel, man, beast, bird, fish, insect, what no man can see, no glass can reach from infinite to thee.

[00:02:16]>> [music] >> As time moved on and the story of evolution began to gain influence over the minds in Western academia, this great chain of being concept was co-opted to reinforce the rise of evolutionary theory.

[00:02:31]>> [music] >> And this theory promoted the idea of life being connected, not as part of a grand design, but as an ever-changing group of organisms linked to one another as the result of being birthed into existence from and morphed out of its evolutionary forerunners.

[00:02:54]By 1936, the distinguished philosopher Arthur Lovejoy, with degrees from Berkeley and Harvard and eventually the professor emeritus at John Hopkins, published his most famous work, a book titled The Great Chain of Being.

[00:03:09]And in it, he traces the concept's history and concludes that evolution has taken the place of God.

[00:03:17]A research article from the Archives of Philosophy summarizes this.

[00:03:22]It would be beneficial to address how the chain of being in question was presented and understood in modern times.

[00:03:30]Unlike the justification of some philosophical or theological subjects, in modern times, the hierarchical structure of the great chain of being has been anachronistically read into the theory of evolution.

[00:03:47]Now, we've all heard the idiom, the weakest link, and understand that it refers to the most [music] vulnerable point that pressure could be brought against an object or concept.

[00:03:59]And what might be the weakest link in the evolutionary view of the great chain of being?

[00:04:09]To answer that, let me quote the father of modern evolutionary thought, Charles Darwin himself, to get his opinion.

[00:04:17]Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

[00:04:23]Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

[00:04:35]Huh. That's interesting, isn't it?

[00:04:37]Darwin recognized that the weakest link in his theory was the links themselves, specifically the missing links, the ones that weren't there.

[00:04:47]Now, to be fair to Darwin, he expected that as paleontology advanced, the missing links would be found.

[00:04:55]And of course, Darwin first published Origin of Species way back in 1859. So, many people might think, "Well, yes, but back in his day, they probably just hadn't done enough digging and research into the matter. Surely over the next 100 years, they would have found all kinds of evidence showing a nice graduated chain of fossils that [music] demonstrates these various kind of creatures slowly changed into completely different kinds in incremental steps over time."

[00:05:24]>> [music] >> However, despite what many people think, that isn't what happened at all.

[00:05:39]In fact, over 118 years after Darwin published his missing link conundrum, the eminent evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, a giant among leading evolutionists of his day, admitted the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

[00:06:02]To preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so [music] bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

[00:06:14]And Gould, one of the most factually honest evolution-believing scientists I've ever read, expounded on that quotation 3 years later.

[00:06:23]The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed, our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.

[00:06:44]Now, despite Gould's prominence as a respected figure in the evolutionary community and one of the most prestigious paleontologists of his day, one might think he was some kind of quirky outlier and dissenter amongst his evolutionary colleagues regarding this topic.

[00:07:00]However, no less than Dr. Colin Patterson, Gould's contemporary and the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, [music] England, admitted the following in a letter to a Mr. Sunderland, who complained about Patterson not having included any transitional fossils in his book on evolution.

[00:07:22]I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

[00:07:34]You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from?

[00:07:41]I could not, honestly, provide it. And if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

[00:07:49]Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.

[00:07:56]You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.

[00:08:03]I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

[00:08:16]So, despite what the typical evolutionary keyboard warrior loves to rant and rave about, the mountain of evidence for evolution there is, including their belief that the fossil evidence demonstrates it happened, this serious challenge about the lack of missing links remains relevant.

[00:08:36]Many might opine that the admissions from these evolution-believing scientists I just quoted are 40 years old now, so surely things have changed drastically since then.

[00:08:47]Well, let's move forward 20 years after they published, and let's see.

[00:08:54]>> [music] >> In 2004, National Geographic had an article called Was [music] Darwin Wrong?

[00:09:02]No.

[00:09:03]And this quotation from the article summarized the problem for evolutionists perfectly.

[00:09:09]Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.

[00:09:20]Now, think about it. How would you like to watch a movie where 99.9% of it was missing, and you were just then supposed to trust someone else's interpretation of what happened in the story?

[00:09:31]>> [music] >> Why would you just trust someone else's interpretation to be accurate? What if there was a whole different way to interpret the few bits you saw?

[00:09:39]Or how would you like to use a chain missing 999 out of 1,000 links?

[00:09:44]Could you trust it to do its job?

[00:09:47]Would it even be accurate to describe it as a chain if you had never seen it assembled in the first place?

[00:09:54]The fact is, the missing links are still missing. And even though modern evolutionists don't tend towards being as candid as they once were, all the major examples have major flaws when trotted out on an individual basis.

[00:10:10]From Darwin's time until present day, the trend has been the same.

[00:10:15]There is typically only a handful of controversial so-called transitional fossils out there [music] at any given time, whose legitimacy is debated even amongst leading evolutionists.

[00:10:27]New ones enter that grouping as older ones fall off the back end in disgrace as the evolutionary community finally admits their failure and abandons the examples because they're too flimsy to support any longer.

[00:10:43]>> [music] [music] >> A perfect example would be the horse evolution series. As one of the earliest examples of so-called transitional fossil evidence, the horse series was claimed to demonstrate a clear evolutionary chain from [music] early precursors to modern-day horses.

[00:11:08]During the famous Scopes trial in 1925, Professor Horatio Newman, a zoologist from the University of Chicago, was part of Clarence Darrow's pro-evolution defense team and apparently helped outline their strategy.

[00:11:22]As an embryologist, Newman's scientific expertise in promoting evolutionary theory was crucial to their case.

[00:11:30]And Newman cited the horse series as proof of evolution in his testimony when he said, "One could hardly ask for a clearer or more conclusive story of evolution than this. And this is only one of many similar cases."

[00:11:47]And where is this conclusive proof of the horse evolution series today?

[00:11:52]Although there are still some evolutionists who hold to a modified version of it to this day, clearly demonstrating the often conflicted nature of such evidence within the evolutionary community.

[00:12:03]Dr. Niles Eldredge, the evolution-believing doctor in biology and paleontology, commented on the horse series as imaginary storytelling being taught as science about 50 years after Newman's declaration concerning the validity of the series.

[00:12:21]"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true.

[00:12:27]For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago.

[00:12:36]That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after [music] textbook. Now, I think that's lamentable.

[00:12:44]Particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff.

[00:12:52]But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've [music] got a problem."

[00:13:05]Do you see how this works? It used to be fact in science, and if you didn't believe the experts, you were just some religious fundamentalist who was denying reality because of your commitment to believing in the magic man in the sky.

[00:13:18]But fast forward a few years, and what do we consistently see regarding some of the most iconic supposed missing links of the past and present. Well, tune in to our next episode where we'll see how the continued lack of missing links is so embarrassingly obvious that some evolutionists are now conveniently claiming they've never been an important evidence for the story of evolution anyway.