Ah yes. Clearly if one doesn't know everything then one doesn't know anything.
Although there doesn't exist any fossil evidence for variation by small mutation, proponents of evolution can usually come up with a story to explain the developmental stages of any particular creature. In the case of the woodpecker's tongue, they can't even come up with a remotely plausible story.
The historical evidence for evolution also shows a remarkable sequence of misrepresentations or outright frauds, which I've highlighted. (All of these "scientific facts" were taught ot me in 10th grade biology in the late '70s, and I'm not very happy about being lied to)
* The Miller-Urey Experiment: evolutionists claim that it demonstrated the emergence of primitive life from Earth’s early atmosphere. Wells shows why, for at least a decade, most geochemists have been convinced it did nothing of the sort.Then there are the other fraudulent "fossils" like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man.* Darwin’s "Tree of Life," showing the branching of species from a common ancestor: supposedly reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence, it has actually been "uprooted and turned upside down" by the evidence
* Similiar bone structures in vertebrate limbs (e.g., a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, a human hand): Darwinists claim they indicate origin in a common ancestor -- but Wells points out the faulty logic underlying this claim, and the gaping hole in the theory built around it
* "Haeckel's embryos": evolutionists use these famous drawings of similarities in early embryos to argue that amphibians, reptiles, birds and humans are all descended from a fish-like animal, and that embryonic development "recapitulates" the stages of evolution. Trouble is, Wells easily proves, the drawings are fakes, misrepresenting the embryos the purport to show! (And they're deceptive in another crucial sense, too)
* Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings: for over a century, Darwinists have called this the "missing link" between ancient reptiles and modern birds, and "unimpeachable" evidence for evolution. But Wells demonstrates that "paleontologists now agree that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in science. The missing link, it seems, is still missing."
* Peppered moths on tree trunks: most textbooks illustrate natural selection with photographs of the two varieties of peppered moths resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks. But Wells explains why "biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws" -- beginning with the fact that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks, and that the textbook photos have been staged!
* "Darwin's finches" on the Galapagos Islands: legend has it that they were instrumental in helping Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution, and that field observations in the 1970s provided evidence for the theory by showing how natural selection affects the birds' beaks. Both claims are patently false, Wells demonstrates
* Four-winged fruit flies: Wells explains why they're "no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow" for proving that genetic mutations supply the raw materials for evolution. Why, then, has it become popular to feature them in textbooks and public presentations defending Darwin's theory? Because they help conceal a deeper problem with the evidence
* A "branching tree" pattern of horse fossils: since the '50s, Darwinists have campaigned to replace the old "linear" icon of horse evolution -- which suggested that evolution may have been "directed" by some supernatural or internal agency -- with this one. But, as Wells shows, the new icon isn't an inference from the evidence, but an imposition of materialist philosophy on it
* From Ape to Human: a series of drawings showing a knuckle-walking ape evolving through a series of intermediate forms into an upright human being. Wells calls this "the ultimate icon" of evolution, and shows why the pitifully meager "evidence" for it lends itself to interpretations that are "heavily influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices"