Dissenting Dickinsonia

Dickinsonia costata from the Ediacaran Biota [1] 

Trilobites abruptly appear from nowhere, without any evolutionary history.

Still, evolutionists insist that the appearance of trilobites in the fossil record was preceded by a long evolutionary pathway. Sadly, it had not left behind any fossil evidence. To account for the nuisance, they come up with some no-go explanations. Here is one of them:

“One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.” [2]

Contrary to this, some soft-bodied organisms have been perfectly preserved as fossils. Dickinsonia would make an excellent example.

Why then the supposed evolutionary ancestors of trilobites have not been preserved? The obvious reason is that they have existed only in the imagination of evolutionists.

Recommended resources:

$9.99 - eBook

$9.99 - eBook

[1] By Verisimilus at English Wikipedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DickinsoniaCostata.jpg. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en).

[2] Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 230.

Darwinism Twice Undone by Trilobites' Eyes

Mesonacis vermontanus trilobite, image by Sam Gon III [1]

Darwin believed that the first eyes were simple and imperfect. He did believe that complex and perfect eyes are a product of evolution. [2]

This evolution is non-existent, however, in the fossil record: trilobites equipped with perfect eyes are found very close to the bottom of the stack of sedimentary layers. 

What is more important, though, is that different Cambrian trilobites have eyes of two different types. [3] From nowhere, without any evolutionary prehistory, two types of complex and perfect optics appear simultaneously. 

Each of the both types of eyes would be enough to overthrow Darwinism, seeing they lack any evolutionary history. And together they render Darwinism twice undone. 

“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2Co.13:1)

Recommended resources:

$5.99 - eBook

$5.99 - eBook

$5.99 - eBook

[1] Image by Sam Gon III. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mesonacis_vermontanus.jpg.  Lisence: Copyrighted free use.

[2] "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. …

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case …then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

(Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. , 1958, p. 169.)

[3] Abathochroal and holochroal eyes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

Darwinian Hopes Dashed against the Eyes of Trilobites

Trilobite Eodiscus punctatus [1]

Darwin was hoping to show that complex eyes evolved from simple eyes. [2]

However, trilobites buried in some of the lowest sedimentary rocks had very complex compound eyes (though, some trilobites had no eyes at all).

Trilobites come from nowhere. They have no evolutionary prehistory. They are found very close to the bottom of the fossil record. And still, they are already equipped with the outstandingly complex optics! 

This fact obstinately testifies to creation of trilobites and the complete inadequacy of Darwinism.

Recommended resources:

$5.99 - eBook

$5.99 - eBook

$9.99 - eBook

[1] Order Agnostida, family Eodiscidae. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Eodiscus_punctatus_head_down_CRF.jpg. Author: Dwergenpaartje. License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

[2] "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. …

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case …then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

(Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. , 1958, p. 169.)

Evolution of Trilobites Is Unreal

Imaginary evolution of trilobites at the superfamily level [1]

Examine, if you would, the chart above, which depicts the supposed evolution of trilobites. The chart makes it obvious that evolution of trilobites is a figment of imagination. 

Every horizontal "stripe" denotes a specific group (technically, superfamily) of trilobites.

1) Where did trilobites come from? A dotted line stretches to the past (to the left), but it is not connected to any other kind of animals.

2) Where did such a diversity of trilobites come from? Different groups of trilobites are connected to each other with dotted lines. 

A dotted line, as a rule, shows a connection which is assumed to exist, but cannot be proven to exist by any fossil finds. 

It means that evolutionary scientists possess no physical evidence to prove that trilobites descended from simpler animals. 

Neither do they possess any physical evidence to prove that some superfamilies of trilobites descended from other superfamilies of trilobites. 

Thus, in the chart, the supposed evolution of trilobites is wholly contained within the dotted lines.

I beg your pardon, but it means that evolution of trilobites is not a scientific fact. Instead, it is simply an ideology, and they are trying to make facts to square with it!

Recommended resources:

$15.99

$9.99 - eBook

[1] Adapted from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trilobit.gif; By: AdmiralHood; License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

Trilobites From Nowhere

Trilobite Megalaspides, Asaphidae [1]

Trilobites appear in the Cambrian “period”, from nowhere. The evolutionary scientists do not know where trilobites came from. Besides, they do not know where all arthropods (the phylum trilobites belong to) came from anyway:

“As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms – either living or in the fossil record – that show convincingly how modern arthropods evolved from worm-like ancestors.” [2]

In other words, arthropods simply emerge in some of the lowest layers of sedimentary rocks (which are layers of mud turned into stone) without any track record. Such a sudden emergence of arthropods is a far cry from the evolution story, but hardly at odds with the global Flood destroying animals created by God. 

Recommended resources:

$34.99

$29.99

$19.99 - DVD

[1] Ordovician, Brown County, Ohio, USA; Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Germany. Автор: H. Zell. License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Megalaspides_01.jpg.

[2] Osorio, Daniel, Jonathan P. Bacon, and Paul M. Whitington. "The Evolution of Arthropod Nervous Systems: Modern Insects and Crustaceans Diverged from an Ancestor over 500 Million Years Ago, but Their Neural Circuitry Retains Many Common Features." American Scientist 85, no. 3 (1997): 244-253. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27856777, accessed on 01/09/2017.

Daring Guesswork in Biology Textbooks

Charles Darwin's 1837 sketch, his first diagram of an evolutionary tree from his First Notebook on Transmutation of Species (1837). [1]

To quote Darwin: 

“But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” [2]

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” [3]

Back in the times of Darwin, any noticeable number of “transitional forms” or any “finely-graduated organic chain” required by Darwin’s theory were unknown to scientists. It follows that from the ground up Darwinism was based on guesswork in the face of the then known scientific facts. Darwin, by the way, deserves the credit for having admitted in writing that his theory contradicted scientific data. 

A century later his theory still flied in the face of scientific evidences:

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” [4]

How daringly can scientific puzzles be solved by those textbook authors who manage to keep up their optimism! 

Parents, would you familiarize yourselves with your children’s biology textbooks?

Recommended resources:

$2.99 - eBook

$9.99 - eBook

$2.99 - eBook

[1] Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADarwin_Tree_1837.png, license: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. 

[2] Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1958, p. 159.

[3] ibid. p. 287-288.

[4] David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.

Darwin Believed in Evolution in Defiance of Facts

Mosaic portrait of Charles Darwin [1]

".. why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" [2]

Both fossils and the living nature objected loudly to Darwin's ideas, only he craved to believe he was right. So, he shut his eyes and stopped his ears.

The lack of "transitional fossils" so-called and well-defined kinds of organisms are powerful arguments for creation.

Recommended resources:

$12.99 - DVD

$12.99 - DVD

[1] Image credit: Andree Kahlmorgan and Cindy Hoffman @ Time Inc., Copyright: Charis Tsevis, TIME Inc. 2009., license: CC BY-NC 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/), source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsevis/3288860652.

[2] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed., New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1958, p.158. 

Evolution Is Accepted by Faith in Defiance of Facts - IV

Charleston - West Ashley: Alycia Alley - Sean Williams' Darwin [1]

Does the fossil record show us Biblical creation (sudden appearance of different kinds of organisms, which multiply only according to their kind) or evolution (new kinds of organisms descend from other substantially different kinds, like fishes from invertebrates, amphibians from fishes, or people from apes)?

“Many evolutionary biologists since Darwin’s time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, withouttransitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared.” [2]

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with

gradualism [evolution by very small steps - I.B.]:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They

appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;

morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady

transformation of its ancestors. It appears all at once and 'fully formed,' " [3]

As we can see, the fossil record clearly speaks about Divine creation. Yet, those who refuse to accept creation invent clever fables to explain away the obvious message of the fossil record. S.J. Gould's cleverly invented fable, for example, can be found in the aforementioned article [3].

    

Recommended resources:

$34.99

$9.99 - eBook

[1] By Wally Gobetz; source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/8749797817; lisence:CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/).

[2] Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., 2000, p. 290.

[3] Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5), May 1977, pp. 14–16.

Evolution Is Accepted by Faith in Defiance of Facts - III

Charleston - West Ashley: Alycia Alley - Sean Williams' Darwin [1]

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism [the idea that evolution proceeds only by small steps – I.B.] that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.' ”

(Emphasis added - I.B.) [2]

So, Stephen J. Gould admits that

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution is not based on the fossil record, but actually denies it;

2) the so-called transitional forms are extremely rare;

3) their rarity is a trade secret of paleontology: most people are unaware of it;

4) the textbook evolutionary trees are not based on fossils, but largely on inference.

The only other remark I would add at this point is that there are no undeniable "transitional forms" in the fossil record, only several dubious candidates.

Evolution is indeed accepted by faith in defiance of facts.

Recommended Resources:

$19.99 - DVD

$9.99 - eBook

$2.99 - eBook

[1] By Wally Gobetz; source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/8749797817; lisence:CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)

[2] Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5), May 1977, pp.14–16.

Evolution Is Accepted by Faith in Defiance of Facts - II

Blind searching, illustration By Frits Ahlefeldt [1]

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion, with ongoing but slow and gradual change accruing over long periods of time, it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. ... Darwin breathed new life into the discipline of paleontology, which was the only field of study that could provide the scientific world with an actual picture of his view of evolution.

Fueled in no small way by the role that paleontology could assume - reconstructing and also demonstrating the course of evolution - the world's leading museums of natural history focused on fossil collecting. ... Now, armed with the possibility of being able to exhibit not just an array of fossils but the drama of evolution itself, museums vied with one another to secure the best fossil localities and discover increasingly older representatives of the lineages of now-extinct animals. ...

But when the dust settled, and the fossils were assessed in terms of whether they validated Darwin's evolutionary predictions, a clear picture of slow, gradual evolution, with smooth transitions and transformations from fossils of one period to another, was not forthcoming. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species. Without fossil intermediates to back up Darwinian predictions of how evolution works, the turn of the century saw both paleontology (an evolutionary discipline) and gradual change via natural selection (an evolutionary model) fall on hard times. Even the paleontologists' special plea - that the gaps in the fossil record were the consequences of poor preservation, the loss of fossils through erosion or other destructive processes - did not work." [2] (Emphasis added - I.B.)

The lengthy quote above, strictly speaking, describes the lack of intermediate fossils at the turn of the XX century. Nevertheless, has the situation changed since then? Not much. 

The quoted work by Jeffrey H. Schwartz was published in 1999. One of its reviewers on Amazon.com wrote: "However, credit is due for developing the thesis that the discontinuous fossil record is due to the relatively sudden emergence of species ..." [3] Please, note that in 1999 the reviewer acknowledges that the fossil record is "discontinuous". Thus, at the turn of the XXI century, "a clear picture of slow, gradual evolution" is not forthcoming still.

What did evolutionists do when faced with the the absence of fossil transitions? Did they reject the idea of evolution? No, they didn't. They did not accept it because of some facts in the first place. Why should they reject it because of some facts?

Evolution is accepted by faith in defiance of facts.

For other revealing quotes see Evolution is a Religion" by G.S. McMurtry on our official website.

Recommended resources:

$12.99

$12.99

$12.99

[1] Blind searching, illustration By Frits Ahlefeldt, hikingartist.com, source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hikingartist/4193330034/in/album-72157623019645604/, license: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

[2] Schwartz, Jeffrey H. Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89-90.

[3] Dr. P. Dash on September 26, 1999, https://www.amazon.com/Sudden-Origins-Fossils-Emergence-Species/dp/0471329851#customerReviews, Accessed on Jan 2, 2017.