Stephen Meyer

He seems to be indicating that the fossil record shows a continuous morphing and changing of organisms one into another as if that is the dominant pattern of the fossil record.

It's not.

The fossil record shows dramatic discontinuity, especially at the

the point of origin of the major taxonomic groups, especially those in the higher taxonomic categories of orders, classes, and phyla.

I wrote a whole book about the abrupt appearance of the major animal forms, the major animal body plans that are exemplified by the major animal forms in the Cambrian period.

I've also written a technical article with a German paleontologist, Gunther Beckley, documenting

17 additional major fossil explosions in the history of life.

All the major groups of organisms where they were talking about the first animals, the first turtles, the first sea reptiles, the first fish, the first birds, the first mammals, the first flowering plants, all of these groups and many, many more arise abruptly in the fossil record with no discernible

ancestral precursors in the lower sedimentary strata.

So the pattern of the fossil record is profoundly discontinuous.

It's not continuous, and therefore it doesn't present a problem for the idea of the special creation of organisms, still less those of human beings.

There's dramatic discontinuities between chimps and humans at the genetic level and at the proteanomic level.

and in the fossil record as well.

So I think just the science is off there.

The old saw that we've always heard that chimps and humans are 98% similar in their gene sequences is no longer true.

More exhaustive studies and comparisons of the genome have shown that that number is very much lower.

And even more importantly, the proteins that are built from the genes are very, very different between humans and chimps.

That's a new study that's come out with a Brazilian group in a top

a biology journal showing that the proteanome of humans and chimps is decidedly different, suggesting that the way the genetic information is processed in humans and chimps is decidedly different, suggesting that the argument, the high degree of similarity points to common ancestry, is not factually predicated.

It needs to be revised in light of new data.