In memory of Gunter Bechly, a beloved scientist and Intelligent Design advocate who passed away earlier this year, this post will focus on his Fossil Friday series, which were superbly done and well documented. Bechly, a former atheistic evolutionist, examined the fossil evidence and exposed evolutionary indoctrination, becoming a self-professed critic of neo-Darwinian evolution.

In an article titled, A Scientific Controversy About Warm-Blooded Animals, Bechly asks this pertinent question: Why are all warm-blooded animals NOT grouped together as descendants of a common warm-blooded ancestor? This is an excellent question because both birds and mammals are warm-blooded, yet they’re not grouped together because evolutionists believe each evolved from a different line of reptile-like animals. So a close relationship is denied. This poses a problem because any supposed transitional reptile must have been cold-blooded. Therefore, both lines would have had to evolve warm-bloodedness separately; this is known as convergent evolution– where evolutionists believe separate groups of animals independently evolved a similar solution to a problem.

This is wildly improbable, as the reptiles they supposedly evolved from would have been successful cold-blooded animals, and changing a cold-blooded animal into a warm-blooded animal would be extremely complex and challenging for natural processes alone- even after millions of years. The idea that different cold-blooded animals evolved into warm-blooded birds and mammals is purely speculative. Further, there are more than a dozen similarities birds share with mammals, so evolutionists must invoke convergent evolution for all of them, which defies logic. Bechly states there’s enough conflicting data to call common descent into question, and I concur.

The next Fossil Friday article challenges another icon of evolution. This case is intriguing because evolutionists act as if evolution is an undeniable fact. But here we find more evidence to the contrary, and, yet again, it is based on a considerable amount of convergent evolution. This seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Mammals supposedly evolved from a group of reptiles called synapsids, but one of the main evidences used by evolutionists to argue for common descent is similarity and gradual change documented in the fossil record. However, Bechly shows how this story is more complicated than evolutionists let on. Such a scenario demands “multiple independent origins of anatomical similarities.” In fact, according to one study, the “current hypotheses on the convergent evolution of middle ear bones are complex and controversial, partly because of a lack of phylogenetic resolution and partly because the interpretation of the fossil evidence is difficult.” This is the opposite of what evolutionists argue publicly.

But it gets worse, as Bechly examines a new, “jaw-dropping” study that rewrites mammalian evolution! Check out the full article for more info.

For our last Fossil Friday article, Bechly presents Helicoprion, a fossil completely unfamiliar to me. At first glance it looks like a spiral, shelled mollusk. But, after more than 100 years, scientists now believe it is the fossilized jaw of a large cartilaginous fish or shark, containing up to 180 razor sharp teeth. Unfortunately, the skeleton hasn’t been preserved, so no one knows what it really looked like or how the jaw operated, leaving scientists to use their imagination.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that evolutionists can’t explain its origin. For me, I find it fascinating to learn about one of God’s designs that is truly bizarre and mysterious. Perhaps future discoveries will shed more light on this animal, but, in the meantime, it’s fun to wonder about strange creatures like this.

RIP Gunter Bechly. You are dearly missed!