Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Evolutionists Further Embarrassed by Coelacanth Fossil

Owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand have made numerous assertions about the distant past based on their naturalistic presuppositions, but are frequently surprised when evidence contradicts their views. While everyone has and argues from their beliefs, secularists should have learned a bit of humility over the years.

Once again, secular scientists operate from flawed presuppositions. A new fossil discovery reminds them of previous errors and raises questions.
Coelacanth replica / Wikimedia Commons / Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0

For a spell, the lobed-finned coelacanth was an icon of evolution because by pure imagination, it was thought to have used its fins to walk up on land and commence to evolving. When they were discovered after that yarn was spun, the supposed early legs were used for the fish's own purposes and had nothing to do with evolution. It was also essentially the same as it was all those Darwin years ago.

A fossil discovery reveals that the coelacanth grew to be much larger long ago. Many things were larger back then. However, the fossil became an ichthyoid elephant in the room: where are all the fossils between its last assigned date in the record and now, with none in recent layers? If secularists would admit that the observed evidence better supports creation science Genesis Flood models, they would not be embarrassed by facts.

One of the most famous living fossils is back in the news. The coelacanth is an endangered deep-sea fish. Its fins fit to unique, wrist-like bones, and unique bony plates envelop what scientists call its lung, which is like the swim bladder that controls buoyancy in other fishes. A new coelacanth fossil find measures more than double the size of live specimens while calling attention to outdated ideas about fossils.

This fossil’s story of discovery began when a private fossil collector asked University of Portsmouth paleontologist David Martill to identify what he hoped was a pterosaur. The mystery fossil came entombed with pterosaur wing bones from Morocco’s famous Cretaceous phosphate beds. According to University of Portsmouth news, Martill identified this strange fossil as the “bony lung” of a fish, a revelation that disappointed the collector but intrigued the scientist for its great size.

You can read the rest by clicking on "Big Fish Fossil Recalls Big Flop".

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Children, Reading, and Failed Evolutionary Paradigms

Evolutionary assumptions carry a great deal of baggage, and most of it fails under scrutiny. Misotheists assert that "children are born atheist", which is absolutely unscientific and has been refuted — and evidence indicates the opposite. In a similar way, children are born with the capacity for language.

Not only is the claim that children are born blank-slate atheists false, they also have a capacity for language that is problematic for evolution.
Credit: slightly edited image from Unsplash / Iana Dmytrenko

Indeed, since secularists know that children have an inborn knowledge of the Creator, they want to get that nasty ol' theism indoctrinated out of them and replaced with evolutionism. Children are not blank slates, old son, but were given many capabilities by their Creator.

A spell back, we saw that children are born "wired" for reading. This subject needs to be examined further, as it causes a Gordian knot for atoms-to-anthropologist thinking. There is no scientific evidence that something as complex as language (including recognition of shapes) evolved from stupid early humans making grunting sounds. This may also indicate why it is easier for youngsters to learn additional languages in addition to that of their countries of residence.

Also, theistic evolutionists are stumped because Adam was able to give names to animals from the beginning. This means that they cannot believe that they Bible says what it means in Genesis and later passages.

“Humans are born with brains ‘prewired’ to see words.”1 So said a news item on a science website. But this would hardly be news to any mother reading a book to a child sitting on her knee. She sees that her child quickly develops the ability to recognize the shape of letters and to associate names with the shapes. Her child can soon recognize whole words at a glance.

The study concluded that a part of the human brain from infancy “is more connected functionally to the language network of the brain than it is to other areas”. One of the researchers speculated, “It’s interesting to think about how and why our brains develop functional modules that are sensitive to specific things like faces, objects, and words.”

To read the rest of this very interesting article, visit "Prewired language processing — an evolutionary ‘Catch 22’". The relevant part of the video below is supposed to start at 6 minutes, 26 seconds.

Monday, April 12, 2021

More on Getting the Universe from Nothing

Здравствуйте on Cosmonautics Day! Can you believe that is has only been sixty years since Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space? I was just a small buckaroo then. Anyway, this seems like a good day to consider further follies by naturalists to get everything from nothing.

Image derived from a NASA illustration
(Usage of original does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Some misotheists will lie, saying that nobody believes that everything came from nothing, and when lassoed with the truth, they conveniently redefine nothing as...something else. I've been ridiculed for this, and the laughing emoji was hypocritically used on my proof by someone who owns the Krauss book, A Universe from Nothing. It's who they are and what they do. As we have seen many times, the narrative is more important to many than actually attempting science and learning the truth.

There's never a sheriff around when you need one because these owlhoots are breaking the law. Specifically, the first law of thermodynamics. Also, speculations are used in a circular reasoning daisy chain to support the real nothing: there is no science involved in their cosmology. Such reasoning also breaks laws of logic, old son. Quite a bit of work, education, and wasted money goes into denying the truth of the Creator with unscientific cosmic evolution. Then materialists congratulate each other over nothing accomplished — a job very well not done. 

The cover story of the latest issue of Science Focus announced in bold letters they had the  answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe. The lead article that caught my attention asked, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This is a “bedrock question” in science. The article was adapted from the author’s best-selling book, What a Wonderful World: One Man’s Attempt to Explain the Big Stuff (2013). Marcus Chown also has a YouTube video on his idea that the universe came from nothing, explaining how nothing created everything.

The only empirical evidence that the universe came from nothing is the well-documented finding that the universe is expanding. If the expansion event is reversed, it brings us back to the primordial egg that started it all. The conundrum then is, where did the primordial egg come from? The solution accepted by many leading cosmologists is, it came from nothing. Thus the reasoning is that nothing ultimately created everything.

The rest of the article is really something. To read it, blast off to "How to Get Everything from Nothing". Ну тогда до свидания!

Saturday, April 10, 2021

Natural Selection and Building a Better Mouse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

You have probably heard the expression, "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door", which is wrongly attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson (even though sites like Brainy Quote spread the error). Another saying is, "If you build a better mousetrap, nature will build a better mouse". Really?

To borrow from an expression about building a better mousetrap and nature building a better mouse, what would happen? Use imagination, then reality.
Credits: Original from RGBStock / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski,
modified with cat, frame, etc. at PhotoFunia

Purveyors of molecules-to-mouse evolution have been known to personify evolution, natural selection, and nature (or "mother nature') as intelligent beings (which is reification). Sometimes those beings make choices on evolution. Because they are invoking teleology, this is a direct contradiction of the random purposeless evolution that Darwin proposed.

An article on irreducible complexity by Dr. Jason Lisle has images of a mousetrap at the beginning. Mousetraps have been used as illustrations for this principle for a while. Even before the term irreducible complexity was first used, biblical creationists have been pointing out that mousetraps, components of living cells, and other things must have everything in place at the same time or nothing works. This by itself refutes machinations of the Bearded Buddha and his disciples, and points to the Master Engineer.

Natural selection (developed by creationist Edward Blyth long before it was hijacked by Charles Darwin) is not a creative force. It can be more accurately consider to be a culling force, removing the unfit from surviving and passing along their genes to later generations. Natural selection is not evolution.

Let's venture into the wonderful world of evolutionary imagination for a spell. Miriam Mouse saw other mice (including her husband Sebastian) die in traditional tried 'n' true mousetraps. She saw the mechanism work and heard the snap. Miriam was smarter and faster, so she absconded with the bait. When she saw the young buck Marvin Mouse also succeed, she happily remarried. Many of their pups avoided traps.

Evolutionists falsely claim that pesticide and antibiotic resistances are evidence of evolution, but no genetic information is added. It is essentially human-imposed natural selection; organisms without resistance were eliminated while those that already had resistance built into their genes survived and reproduced.

This is similar to the "better mouse" idea. A form of natural selection culled those that could not avoid the trap, but the fittest survived and passed along their genes. Imagine that! No evolution would have occurred, no new genetic information that is required for vertical evolution could be given. Indeed, mice and microorganisms were using what was built into them by our Creator from the get-go.

Friday, April 9, 2021

Secular Religious Indoctrination: Two Standards, No Waiting

When people who believe in creation want to teach their children, secularists chant in Vox Robotica, "That is indoctrination. We educate. Believe". Of course, secular institutions of alleged learning have children many hours a day, days a week, weeks a year. They indoctrinate in the atheistic state religion.

Secular humanists object to private schools teaching what they call religion, but they hypocritically force their own religious views in schools.
School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668

Secular humanism is a worldview that exalts humanity above all else, and its foundation is philosophical naturalism. Essentially, it is the religion of atheism in a masque.

"But Cowboy Bob, there are religious people that have signed the Humanist Manifesto things!"

Yes there are. There are also those who mounted up and rode with Michael Zimmerman's anti-creationist "Clergy Letter Project", and some groups for the separation of church and state (the kind where anything Christian is to be kept out of public life). However, you are unlikely to find Bible-believing Christians among the groups. Also, these inhuman humanists have published many atheistic, anti-Christian, and anti-creationist items, but objections to those from alleged theists are conspicuously absent.

Atheists are famous for their efforts to silence anyone who speaks (or even thinks) against fish-to-fool evolutionism (see "Evolutionists Stoking the Fires of Censorship Again"). It seems reasonable that humanists would support free speech and free thought for the sake of science and reason, but these things are not happening. There are numerous instances where creationists as well as Intelligent Design proponents have lost their jobs because of their views, one example is "Cancel Culture in Science".

This kind of thing is not just in the formerly United States, nor is it confined to the public sector. They are not concerned with "religion" so much as they are pushing their religious views. The hypocrisy of these so-called humanists is stunning. Let's take a look-see at the religious principles that secularists are using to indoctrinate children.

Following reports of government action against a Jewish private school in the UK, Stephen Evans, chief executive of the UK’s National Secular Society (NSS), was quoted as saying, “Schools that teach creationism as science are prioritising religious indoctrination above the educational rights of the children they teach.”

Following is an open letter to Mr Evans.

Dear Mr Evans,

To read the rest of this extremely informative article/letter, see "Indoctrinating children — Can’t teach creationism because it is ‘religious indoctrination’? Then stop teaching the big bang and evolution for the same reason!"

Thursday, April 8, 2021

Fake News for T. Rex Feathered Babies

Those fun-loving folks purveying evoporn persist in promoting the majority beliefs that not only did dinosaurs evolve into birds, but they had feathers as well. T. Rex young'uns allegedly sported them as well. Some of us demand evidence, not just inferences or just-so stories.

Purveyors of the belief that dinosaurs had feathers have made claims that young T. Rex fossils showed them. There is no actual evidence for this.
Assembled with components from Clker clipart

We have examined claims that fossils show evidence of feathers (one post is "More On Dinosaur Feather Fake News"), but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Not that it matters, really, because God may have chosen to make some with feathers. It is not a threat to biblical creation science (but perhaps a threat to real science and logic when Darwin's disciples illogically extrapolate that into proof they evolved into birds). However, there is still no real evidence for feathered dinosaurs. Some interesting paleontology was tainted by non-science when feathers on young ones was claimed.

The recent discovery of a tiny tyrannosaur jaw bone fragment and a claw has some scientists again pushing dinosaurs as birds. But is there any evidence that T. rex had feathers, as so often is portrayed, let alone as young hatchlings?

A group of paleontologists, led by Gregory Funston from the University of Edinburgh, have identified the first embryonic bones from a tyrannosaur, a tiny jaw fragment and a claw. The science team wrote:

You can finish the article at "No Evidence T. rex Hatchlings Had Feathers".

Wednesday, April 7, 2021

Secularists Moving DNA Goalposts

When the numbers are not working out the way the Party desires, change them. It is known that DNA is a fragile molecule and cannot last indefinitely. When the Darwin Party's deep-time dogma was challenged by DNA in a mammoth tusk, they changed the numbers.

Evidence for recent creation and the Flood are bad for secularists, so they change so-called facts. DNA deteriorates, but a secular miracle occurred.
Credit: Flickr / Andrew Wilkinson (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Naturalists protect their storyline. We have seen many other instances where they ignored data, tampered with the evidence, and lied outright. Not content to play the cards they're dealt, they deal from the bottom of the deck — or even print their own cards to stash in their sleeves to play as needed. We have two articles showing how these Darwinoids are acting in an extremely unscientific manner to deny recent creation and the Genesis Flood. That stinks, Sebastian.

There is an upper limit on how long DNA can last. That number was adjusted because Darwin needs mega years to make his magick. Since the DNA in a mammoth's tusk was in permafrost, that changed things. Sure, cold might slow the decay rate of DNA, but their claims are based on deep-time presuppositions. It is faith and assumptions, not observable evidence. Further, the claims of "sequencing the genome" are suspicious, since all they obtained were fragments.

Also, since there were varieties of mammoths, these sidewinders did the sneaky bait-and-switch word trick by referring to varieties and variations as evolution, which is intended to imply that Papa Darwin was right. But none of that evolution is present. They're trying to pull the wool over our eyes again by imposing their beliefs on the evidence.

Any DNA found older than this upper limit will cause huge problems for the evolutionary dating scheme.

Researchers have extracted and reconstructed DNA from a mammoth tusk they say is 1.2 million Darwin Years old. This is a new record, they say. It was possible only because the tusk was buried in permafrost. Their conclusions should be remembered if DNA much older is ever found.

You can read the amazing report at "Scientists Set Maximum Lifetime for Ancient DNA". Be sure to come back for the second item.

Our next part obviously has a bit of overlap, but there are several things discussed that relate to the age of the earth and biblical creation science. What is really the oldest DNA actually discovered? How could these furry critters survive such exceptionally low, harsh temperatures and conditions for so many years in the Ice Age? Take a look a creation science Flood models, and things make a great deal more sense.

Although it may be possible for cold temperatures to preserve segments of DNA for one million years, mammoths defy long-age expectations in other ways. A great mystery of Earth history is how millions of woolly mammoths thrived in Siberia during the Ice Age. Siberian winters are brutally cold, with typical lows of 40 degrees below zero, but annual mammoth migrations to warmer latitudes would have been impractical. How could the mammoth—even with its wooly insulation—have guarded against such brutally cold temperatures?

The Genesis Flood provides an indirect but responsible answer that starts by explaining the Ice Age in general. Rapid seafloor spreading greatly warmed the world’s oceans, including the northern Pacific and Arctic oceans. This dramatically increased evaporation, putting enormous amounts of moisture into the atmosphere. This moisture fell as ice and snow at higher latitudes and elevations, triggering the Ice Age.

To read the article, see "Mammoth DNA: The Oldest Ever Found?"

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Whale Evolution Refuted by Genetics

Sometimes, I reckon I should quit discussing whale evolution. Not because secularists have finally found evidence for this pillar of their faith, but because they cling to their stories despite reason and science. It takes a great deal of credulity to believe such tales, and science is once again on the side of the creationists.

People such as Dawkins say the whale is one of the best examples of evolution are full of hooey. Reason, science, especially genetics show otherwise.
Humpback whale image credit: NOAA.gov
Touted by the faithful as one of the "best" evidences for their beliefs, if someone rides up the hill and looks down at the big picture, Darwinists are asking us to believe many things. Without evidence. (One time, I linked to material where someone admitted on camera to faking the fossils for museums, and I was attacked by a liar for Darwin!) Purveyors of evoporn are as civil as a burlap bag full of rattlesnakes when caught lying — or even questioned about their alleged facts.

"But Cowboy Bob! Richard Dawkins says —"

Dawkins says a lot of hooey in his cheerleading for atheism and proselytizing of evolutionism. Also, appealing to his "authority" as well as appealing to majority views is fallacious.

As I have indicated many times, the more science and technology develop, the more blind faith it takes to believe in evolution and deny the Creator. In the big picture view, we can see that the story is ridiculous at first glance: life began in the sea, evolved, moved up on land, evolved, then some critter decided the sea is a better place, so whales and things evolved. A thinking person should be questioning where evolutionists have evidence (not just "maybe", "perhaps", "could be", "scientists think", and that sort of bunkum) for the multitudinous changes necessary.

Coming back down from the hill, we can look at the small picture. Using the science of genetics that was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), we see that real science is hostile to evolution. Before getting the bit between your teeth and running for the link, let me tell you about that and what follows. Well, first is last: There is an excellent video about whale evolution, and below that, several links that show why the whole thing is balderdash. You may want to bookmark this page for future reference. As for the link itself, the article is very long — but made to look mighty huge because it includes a passel of references and then appendices made available for people who want to educate themselves further. Ready?
In recent years evolutionists have increasingly promoted the evolution of whales as one of the most convincing examples of macroevolution. Their alleged evidence is a mounting number of fossils that they claim are of transitional creatures in this process. In the debate about this subject, creationists have generally focused upon these same creatures, particularly specific details of their anatomy. In essence, the debate boils down to evolutionists explaining why they believe these creatures are ancestors of whales and creationists explaining why they can’t be. Although this issue merits discussion, focusing too much attention upon it is somewhat myopic, for there is another area of investigation that deserves considerably more attention, which is the process that supposedly created these transitional creatures in the first place.

To read the rest of this extremely useful paper, take a deep breath and swim on over to "Genetics Proves Absurdity of Whale Evolution". This, and the other material, wrecks the idea of whale evolution. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Links for resources:

Monday, April 5, 2021

Pesticide Resistance Falsely Called Evolution

Several icons of particles-to-pilot evolution are proudly proclaimed by Darwin's disciples, who cry, "Aha! Gotcha!" at creationists. However, subjects like antibiotic resistancewhale evolution, and others cannot withstand true science and logic. We can add pesticide resistance to the list of fake evolution claims.

Darwinists proudly proclaim that pesticide resistance is an example of evolution. Also, it is shenanigans because actual evolution is not happening.
Credit: Flickr / jetsandzeppelins (CC BY 2.0)

Indeed, the similarities between antibiotic and pesticide resistances are quite evident, but evolutionists will pull bait-n-switch shenanigans on us, conflating variations and change with vertical evolution. Resistance already existed in organisms, and when Designer-programmed epigenetics kicks in, organisms use existing genetic information. When PBC used pesticide resistance in their Darwin-worshiping propaganda, they accidentally admitted that no new genetic information is added — which means no vertical evolution. For that matter, pest control advisers are inadvertently working from a creationist perspective!

A favourite icon of evolutionists, i.e. oft-cited by them as evidence of evolution, is the phenomenon of pesticide resistance.

On the evolution-proclaiming PBS website for example, the diminished efficacy of rodent poisons and insecticides is because “we have simply caused pest populations to evolve”. And no doubt wanting to prove that evolutionary theory has practical relevance, the PBS Evolution Library paints a grim picture of how this “evolution” is making life harder for us:

To read the rest, see "Pesticide resistance is not evidence of evolution".

Saturday, April 3, 2021

The True Source of Life

Believers in scum-to-sculptor evolution reject out of hand the fact of the physical Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, preferring instead a worldview based on materialism and naturalism. Their worldview equates all religions, claiming that as living organisms evolved, so did religions.

Evolutionists believe that we arose from the slime and that religions evolved. The truth is, the Creator of the universe physically arose from the dead.
Credit: RGBStock / Bartek Ambrozik
In one way, they are right: the founders of other religions and causes are still in their tombs. Biblical Christianity stands on the truth that the Creator of the universe, God the Son, took the human form of Jesus and walked among us. He voluntarily died for our sins. We must repent and place our faith in God alone for our salvation. All other religions are man-centered and based on salvation by works, which cannot be achieved. Christianity stands alone. Despite the claims of materialists, God is real. "Up from the slime we arose!" is not a hymn. They do not have an Easter to celebrate any kind of Resurrection.
In today's secular religion of naturalistic evolution, no resurrection from the dead is possible. Only once, they say, did lifeless chemicals spring to life, eventually descending into us all. But even they recognize that the spontaneous generation of life is "impossible," and has been disproved, yet they still believe it. It takes a Creator to have life.

In Christianity the Creator is identified as Jesus Christ. The very same One who died on the cross created life in the first place. Thus, only He had the power and authority to again take up His life.
You can read the full article by clicking on "The Resurrection and the Origin of Life" (at the end it refers to "upcoming events" because it was written in 2005). Another to consider is, "God of Creation, God of the Resurrection".

Friday, April 2, 2021

Plants Under Ice Fluster Evolutionists

Although it was not planned, a spate of articles have a common element where secularists have been faced with evidence that is recalcitrant to fish-to-philosopher evolution or deep time views. We have two articles for your perusal that have the same effect. This time, plants in extremely cold places.

Secular scientists are continually astonished when discoveries do not fit their worldview. However, what is discovered fits creation science models.
Greenland north coast image credit: NASA / Michael Studinger

Have you ever been working with your team on a project, then lose some of what you were working on, only to find it about fifty years later? Sure you have, it happens to all of us. Drilling down under Greenland ice, a core sample was taken and then analyzed after it was found many years later. As purveyors of clickbait might say, "The results will shock you!" Well, the results did shock the scientists.

How did that dirt get in there under the ice sheets? In fact, it appears that the ice sheets were gone for a spell and plants grew. Greenland is a mighty big place, so such a thing was not an anomaly. Although your typical village atheist has great faith in dating methods, a thinking person might get uncomfortable when learning that the results were off a thousand percent. So, secularists, take the noon stage to Spin City, and be sure to ignore how your paradigm does not fit the facts, but also ignore how the Genesis Flood models from creation scientists fit the evidence quite well.

Plant materials in an ice core cannot be a million years old. They look like they were buried in the recent past.

A rediscovered ice core dug in 1966 is shocking scientists. A mile under the Greenland ice sheet—which is supposed to be 2.6 million Darwin Years old—twigs and leaves of modern plants have been found. This discovery has ramifications for geological dating and also for climate change politics. PhysOrg 15 March 2021 describes the stunned reaction of scientists from the University of Vermont.

To read the rest, skate over to "Recent Plants Found Under Greenland Ice". Remember, we have one more to consider. How cool is that?

In a research expedition that could be made into an exciting movie, fossils were found beneath the ice. Big plant fossils and other things. Scientist are bewildered because (say it all together) the evidence doesn't fit the narrative. Also, such plants shouldn't exist at that time according to evolutionary assumptions. Once again, biblical creationists are not shocked by the information. Pleasantly surprised, sure, since discoveries continually confirm recent creation and the Genesis Flood, but also falsify evolution. Again.

They found more diversity of plant species than had been known before from wood specimens. They say, “the diversity of entire-margined (or smooth-edged) leaves in the Paleocene forests was unexpected.” They also found differences between the east and west sides of the Antarctic Peninsula. The closest living analogues are found in the Patagonian forests of South America.

The presence of temperate forests in what today is the coldest part of the world means that earth has experienced dramatic climate change in the past. Secular scientists have this all worked out on their timeline, with names for the climate changes:

You can read the rest of this very interesting article at "Was Antarctica Once a Land of Forests?"

Thursday, April 1, 2021

Not Fooled by Land Vertebrate Evolution Stories

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been desperately trying to shloop stories and fool the public. Mayhaps they are on the prod because biblical creation science ministries have been trying to teach people to think and ask questions. The problem of Rohmer's Gap is not going away.
Evolutionists are making fools of themselves with bad excuses for gaps in the fossil record. Their own model fails,  but creation science explains.
Pederpes image credit: Wikimedia Commons / DiBgd (CC BY-SA 3.0)

No, Rohmer's Gap is nowhere near the Darwin Ranch. It is in the fossil record regarding missing transitional forms (as if they had any undisputed transitional forms in the first place!), and it's huge. Try as they might, evolutionists cannot shrink or eliminate the gap despite a few prospective failed candidates. They plug in their naturalistic models, but those do not explain what is observed. Using a creation science Flood geology model, however, makes a great deal more sense of the evidence. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

One of the biggest hurdles for evolution to overcome is the transition of creatures from living in water to living on land. In the previous article, I showed how all of the alleged aquatic ancestors that were supposedly evolutionary precursors of terrestrial -- creatures were nothing more than unique types of fish-like creatures that couldn’t have lived on land. But the secular story gets even more implausible due not only to a huge absence of transitional fossils during the period of time in which the early land vertebrate evolution supposedly took place, but also to an explosion of complex terrestrial life at the beginning of the Carboniferous (Mississippian system).

During the mid-1900s, Alfred Romer, a Harvard vertebrate paleontologist, candidly noted that about 30 million years of time following the end of the Devonian (Age of Fishes) and extending into the overlying Carboniferous contained no transitional fishto-tetrapod fossils to help the evolutionary cause. This glaring lack of land-evolving tetrapod fossils became widely known among paleontologists as Romer’s Gap.

You can read the rest and see how fundamentalist evolutionists are making fools of themselves at "The Fossils Still Say No: Missing Early Evolution of Land Vertebrates".