Evolutionists' Confessions Stating That the Theory of Evolution Cannot Account for the Origin of Mammals

According to the evolutionist scenario, reptiles are the ancestors of birds, just as they are of mammals. Yet there are huge structural differences between reptiles-whose bodies are covered in scales, whose blood is cold, and who reproduce by laying eggs-and mammals, whose bodies are covered in fur, which are warm blooded and reproduce by giving birth.

In the same way that no biological or physiological explanation of how reptiles supposedly turned into mammals has ever been given, so evolutionists cannot cite even a single intermediate form fossil to indicate that such a transition ever took place.

Moreover, it is impossible even to imagine such a transition, as first admitted by Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory:

I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal.259

Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:

The transition to the first mammal... is still an enigma.260

One of the greatest differences
 between reptiles and mammals
is the scales that cover the reptilian
 body and bird feathers. These two
structures are totally different from
each other in every respect. Unlike feathers,
 scales do not extend beneath the skin,
 merely forming a hard later on the
surface of the creature's body.
They have nothing in common, genetically,
 biochemically or anatomically, with feathers. 
This enormous difference between scales and
 feathers totally undermines the reptile-bird
evolution scenario.

 George Gaylord Simpson is one of the main evolution authorities of 20th century and one of the founders of Neo-Darwinist theory:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on Earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.261

This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals... The earliest and most primitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases, the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate... it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.262

Eric Lombard is professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago:

Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.263

Tom S. Kemp is a curator of the Zoological Collections at the University of Oxford:

Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, without leaving a directly descended species.264

While the great majority of evolutionists are unable to suggest any explanation for the emergence of mammals, some others have behaved more outrageously and produced various ridiculous and irrational tales. One such tale regarding the evolution of reptiles into mammals is described in one evolutionist publication:

Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally, the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.265

The above account is a completely unscientific stretch of the imagination. There is no evidence that anything in this account actually happened. Neither is it possible for them to have happened. To suggest that a living thing caused such a substance as milk-so finely calculated and of such enormous nutritional value-by licking sweat from its mother's body is the kind of nonsense one might have heard in the ignorant pseudo-scientific environment of the Middle Ages. This and other such tales which frequently appear in evolutionist publications show how far removed the theory of evolution is from genuine science.

259- Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 128.

260- Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Out," Science, Vol. 212, June 26, 1981, p. 1492.

261- George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man, New York: Time-Life Books, 1972, p. 42.

262- George G., Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, 1944, pp. 105, 107.

263- R. Eric Lombard, "Review of Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear, Gerald Fleischer," Evolution, Vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230.

264- Tom Kemp, "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist 92 [sic, it's actually 93]: 583, 4 March 1982.

265- George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr. Tompkins Inside Himself, New York: The Viking Press, 1967, p. 149.