Was Darwin Right? Part 2: Darwinism and the Cambrian Question
One hundred and fifty years have passed since Darwin first offered his hypothesis for the origin of the diversity and disparity of complex animal life. Today, it is largely taken for granted that the fossil record has been thoroughly scoured and that the evidence overwhelmingly confirms the truth of Darwin’s theory. But does the evidence of the fossil record really support Darwin's theory of natural selection and gradualism as the story of the origin of animal diversity and disparity? Remember, Darwin claimed that “the number of intermediate transitional links, between all living things, must have been exceedingly great.” Was he right?
The Cambrian Period of geological history began 543 million years ago. It is important to understand that there is little about the Cambrian fossil record in itself that remains a mystery. In fact, the Cambrian Period was well known during
A phylum denotes the highest order of the animal world, each phylum representing a complete animal body plan. It is estimated that as high as 87% of all of the complete basic animal body plans appear in the Cambrian strata. This is the final category of biological development that Darwinism predicts would exist at the end of a long and evident evolutionary process. However, what baffled Darwin, and what still baffles Darwinists today, is the abrupt appearance of complete major animal body structures in the Cambrian fossil record without a trace of any transitional forms between them or transitional precursors before them.
Furthermore, the Cambrian animals themselves all appear within a 5 million year period. To gain perspective on how short a time this is, one paleontologist points out that, when considered in light of the complete history of life on earth, 5 million years is like a minute in a twenty-four hour day. It is no wonder that this event has been named the "Cambrian explosion,” and that popular scientific literature has dubbed it Biology's Big Bang.
So what’s the verdict? Darwin was wrong. The fossil record supports the sudden appearance of animals on earth. There is scant evidence of transitional forms within or prior to the Cambrian record. What might this imply about the origin of complex life on our planet? Just as an intelligent cause appears to be behind the cosmological big bang that brought the universe into existence, such appears to be the case for this biological big bang as well. Does God exist? We may attempt to explain away the evidence, but if we approach the evidence with a scentific attitude, seeking honestly to make an inference to the best explanation, we are compelled to consider the Creator.
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science” (Charles Darwin, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991, 456).
"O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures" (Psalm 104:24).
Bookmark the Christian Apologetics Blog or subscribe by email!
Next Christian Apologetics Topic: Am I My Brain?
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Categories: Science and Faith
Tags: Christian Apologetics
Great job Arnie, You truely have a unique talent for this. Keep it up my Friend!
Reply to this
Quote: "But does the evidence of the fossil record really support Darwinian gradualism as the story of the origin of animal diversity and disparity?"
It does support the evolutionary theory. Animals evolved and are still evolving. I take this as a strong fact.
Quote: "Darwin claimed that “the number of intermediate transitional links, between all living things, must have been exceedingly great.” Was he right?"
All living creatures are links between their ancestors and their children. And every fossil is a link between his ancestor and his children. And there are so many missing links, even if evolution where not true. Does this mean that there are no links? That animals (who became fossils) didn't get children, or that animals didn't had ancestors? Of course not!
'Missing links' doesn't mean anything. Every fossil and every living creature today is a link. And maybe there are links missing in the fossil record, that doesn't mean that the animals didn't had children. We don't know, simply because we don't have the fossils of their children. Maybe their children didn't became a fossil or maybe the animals who became a fossil died without children. We just don't know.
My question: When is the number of fossils 'exceedingly great'? If 1 out of the 1.000.000 animals became a fossil, than we do have a lot of fossils! If 1 out of the 2 became a fossil, than we don't have so much fossils. For as far as I know there are no "higher" creatures in the cambrium strata. No mammals, dinosaurs or primates.
In the Netherlands the most theologians support evolution and they say/think that evolution fits perfectly with the Bible. They also say that a literally 6-day creation gives very big theological problems.
I don't know if you are a young-earth or an old-earth creationist... But Our stars show us that we live in a very very old universe!
I hope to hear from you very soon!
Greetings and blessings from your Dutch friend (from the Netherlands),
Remko
Reply to this
Greetings, my Dutch brother, welcome back! I know its a long way to travel! I respond to your post below.
Quote: "But does the evidence of the fossil record really support Darwinian gradualism as the story of the origin of animal diversity and disparity?"
It does support the evolutionary theory. Animals evolved and are still evolving. I take this as a strong fact.
On what basis may we assert this? As your claim stands, you have simply asserted that evolutionary theory is true because animals have evolved and are still evolving. But this is a circular argument since it assumes what needs to be proved. In addition, there is no evidence that animals are still evolving of which I am aware. Since the Cambrian explosion, the primary characteristic of the geological record is its sameness or "stasis."
Quote: "Darwin claimed that “the number of intermediate transitional links, between all living things, must have been exceedingly great.” Was he right?"
All living creatures are links between their ancestors and their children. And every fossil is a link between his ancestor and his children. And there are so many missing links, even if evolution where not true. Does this mean that there are no links? That animals (who became fossils) didn't get children, or that animals didn't had ancestors? Of course not!
We are not concerned about whether or not animals had children. I think we can all agree on that. We want to find the actual fossil links that provide evidence for Darwin's theory. The fact that these links are missing from the fossil record indeed creates great problems for Darwinism.
Darwin claimed in The Origin of Species that “the number of intermediate transitional links, between all living things, must have been exceedingly great [because] if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest [Cambrian] stratum was deposited, long periods of time elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the [Cambrian] age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures ."
The Myth of Macroevolution ;
Theistic Evolution .
The fossil record does not support this prediction. There is no evidence for Darwinism.
'Missing links' doesn't mean anything.
Missing links mean everything. If not, why have paleontologists been so passionately (and unsuccessfully) searching for them for the past 160 years? The links must be found if Darwin's theroy of evolution is true.
Every fossil and every living creature today is a link. And maybe there are links missing in the fossil record, that doesn't mean that the animals didn't had children. We don't know, simply because we don't have the fossils of their children.
Maybe their children didn't became a fossil or maybe the animals who became a fossil died without children. We just don't know.
But the truth of Darwinism (that is, gradual evolutionism) cannot be established on an argument from silence. It can only be supported by a fossil record that actually exists. Otherwise, it remains only a speculation. That means that there is room for other views that may provide a better explanation.
My question: When is the number of fossils 'exceedingly great'? If 1 out of the 1.000.000 animals became a fossil, than we do have a lot of fossils! If 1 out of the 2 became a fossil, than we don't have so much fossils. For as far as I know there are no "higher" creatures in the cambrium strata. No mammals, dinosaurs or primates.
Darwin claimed that the truth of his theory depended on the unearthing of the fossils of a swarm of creatures. I really don't think that most objective analysts would disagree on the meaning of swarm. It means that there would be a saturation of the record with transitional forms regardless of the actual number.
The argument you have so far presented is called the artifact hypothesis, that is, the absence of evidence is just an artifact of the fossil record. But this does not leave us with any reason to believe that evolution is true. It only explains away the lack of evidence such that believing in evolution becomes an act of blind faith rather than a belief based on evidence. I offer the following two links for further information:
In the Netherlands the most theologians support evolution and they say/think that evolution fits perfectly with the Bible. They also say that a literally 6-day creation gives very big theological problems.
I don't know if you are a young-earth or an old-earth creationist... But Our stars show us that we live in a very very old universe!
I do not believe that the record of the Bible supports evolution, nor am I a literal six-day creationist. I accept all of the dates proposed by science, including the age of the universe and the age of the earth. That is apparent in my acceptance of the dating of the Cambrian explosion. For my argument for the existence of God based on the cosmological Big Bang, check out: Does God Exist?
The word "day" in the Genesis account may be legitimately translated as "epoch" or "aeon", in short, a long period of time. Putting this together with the findings of science has compelled me to accept Progressive Creationism as the view best suited to integrating the Bible and science. I believe that there were periods of intense creative activity by God, followed by long periods of time, followed by extinction events. This cycle repeated itself several times as God was preparing the earth for his ultimate creation: Man and Woman. I am afraid that evolution, whether it be atheistic or Theistic, fails to give sufficient reason for us to accept the Genesis account of cosmic creation and the special creation of man and woman. Theistic Evolution appears to me to require a largely autonomous natural process (Darwinian evolution) following a single Divine creative act. This view, in my estimation, potentially threatens the biblical notion of God's ongoing providential guidance of the universe and his special (miraculous) intervention in it.
I am very glad to know you, Remko. And certainly, I do not consider our differences on these issues to in any way impair our relationship and fellowship as brothers in the Lord. May God richly bless you even as I pray that you may be persuaded to reconsider your position. I really respect you for wrestling with this issue. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
Arnie
I hope to hear from you very soon!
Greetings and blessings from your Dutch friend (from the Netherlands),
Remko
Reply to this
I've read the word 'macro-evolution' several times and i don't like that term in a way. I will try to explain why.
Micro-evolution = small changes (other hair color)
Macro-evolution = big changes (other types of legs)
In the evolutionary theory there is no macro-evolution. There are no big changes. All the changes are very small and thats why we can't see "a monkey evolving into a human". You are different from your father, your father is different from his father and your grandfather is different from his father. This differences between every step are very small, but when you let more generations in between you get more and more differences. You can be extremely different from someone who lived 50 generations ago.
This is not a proof for evolution, but i want to let you know that this is how evolution works: Only in small steps (in what you call micro-evolution, i will just say evolution because they never talk about micro or macro in the evolutionary theory. Thats invented by creationists) and over long periods of time. You will see that lots of small steps lots of generations will make a big change. But you can not say that there is macro-evolution, because then you just forget all the generations in between.
In evolution we see 3 factors: Natural selection, sexual selection and artificial selection.
I think you know how they all work. Natural selection selects the survivors, sexual selection selects the 'chosen ones' (mostly the most beautiful ones). Natural selection can result for example in fast running animals. Sexual selection can result in colorful animals.
So I think you will agree on me that there is natural and sexual selection (even if you think evolution is not true).
If there are 10 birds and 3 of them can be chosen, than the 3 most beautiful will win the contest. From the 10 birds 4 birds have dull colors, 3 have normal colors and 3 have bright colors. The last 3 will be chosen, they give there 'brightcolor'-genes to the next generation. In the next generation there are again 10 birds. 4 with bright colors, 3 with brighter colors and 3 with most bright colors of the 10. Again the last 3 will be chosen and give their genes to the next generation et cetera, et cetera.
It's an example of 1 change. But after 10 generations you will already see big changes between generation 1 and generation 10. This isn't macro-evolution, but just (micro-)evolution. After 100 generations you get paradise-birds, parrots and peacocks. And what enormous changes can we get after 1.000 generations?!
At last of this reply I want to give my problem with 'God did it' thinking. I need another reaction to react on evidence.
My problem is in short (50 left) that God is placed in the unexplained.
Here are some examples for human evolution:
http://delamagente.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg
I know that creationists always deny it or claim that it is a lie/fraud. I wish they where more honest and open minded.
Greetings and blessings!!!
Reply to this
Hi, Remko,
My Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary defines macroevolution as: n. large-scale and long-range evolution involving the appearance of new genera, families, etc., of organisms.
I found an anti-creationist website that said the following: "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
So it seems to me that the origin of the term is within evolutionism, not creationism.
The issue is with a monkey evolving into a human. There is no evidence that supports this notion. There is no evidence that supports the notion that natural selection breaks those limits which bind species within their kinds. Birds do not become fish and fish do not become tigers, as macroevolution supposes.
Microevolution, defined in Webster as: n. small-scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and recombinations, isresulting in the formation of slightly differing varieties.
Notice the phrase "slightly different varieties." This kind of "evolution" has been going on since creation. many varieties of a particular kind are the result of this process. But all of them remain what they are by nature. There are many varieties of monkeys, but they are all monkeys. There are many varieties of humans, but we are all humans. My ancestors are all humans, just like me, not monkeys. And no evidence has been brought forth that challenges this commonsense notion which is confirmed in the pages of Scripture. God created all living things according to their kinds. Some kinds became extinct, but others survived. But none of them evolved into different kinds
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Ok, the point is: Evolution is going very very slow. You will not notice the change from one kind to another kind in 1 generation. You will only see the big changes if you zoom out to maybe 1000 generations. The first of the 1000 and the last of the 1000 will differ, like you call it "macro". But that doesn't mean that there is macro-evolution! Because the first one will not give birth to the last of the 1000 generations. We have to look closer and than we see micro-evolution. There is micro-evolution in every generation, the accumulation of these micro-steps brings us finally to a big change what you can call macro. But! Than 'macro-evolution' will have another definition. Than macro-evolution just means 'a big accumulation of small varieties'. Than macro-evolution is just for example 1000 times micro-evolution.
I think its better to understand evolution fully before we look to the evidence. We can't understand the evidence if we do not fully understand evolution.
You asked me for evidence for "that small changes can produce big changes over lots of generations". I indeed want to make a conceptual process first, before I come with evidence.
I want to show the possibility of evolution without any evidence before i can give some evidence. This because evidence will not convince. It's the story that will convince. The beautiful simplicity and clearness of evolution has convinced me. After that i could open my eyes and look to the evidence different.
Even when there is no evidence, evolution will still be a better philosophical answer than 'God of the gaps'. Evolution declares how God created. The Bible never told how God did it, but only that God did it. The evolutionary-theory is just a completion of Genesis. The evolutionary-theory will go into the details, Genesis tells us that God is the creator of everything. It also tells us that there are no sun- or forestgods, but that the sun and forest are created by God and that God is above His creation.
At last i want to say that no-evidence is not evidence. No-evidence is not evidence for a Creator. Only evidence can be. And it doesn't matter if you wait 160years or 1000 years, no-evidence will stay no-evidence and not evidence in the opposite way.
Intelligent Design and creationism look to the lack of evidence for evolution, but that will not proof that ID or creationism is right. They have to come with evidence that will support creation.
It is not an or-or situation, not 'evolution or creation', it can be both, creation by evolution. And if we can not find the links, than that doesn't mean directly that there is creation. We actually see a gradual change from the bottom layers up to the top layers. And that supports evolution, even when there are missing links.
At last i want to ask what kind of evidence you like to see...
I can't show you how a monkey becomes a human, thats a stupid joke made by creationists.
Greetings and blessings!
Remko
PS. I'm interested in this subject more than others.
Reply to this
At last i want to ask what kind of evidence you like to see...
I want to see the evidence that Darwin said we should see if his theory were true. I do not believe that is too much to ask.
I can't show you how a monkey becomes a human,
Exactly, and that's the problem. This should be apparent from the fossil record.
thats a stupid joke made by creationists
No, that's exactly what Darwin told us we would find. So it must be his stupid joke.
I rest my case.
Blessings, Gemko,
Arnie
Reply to this
Hello Arnie,
I've reached the 3000 in my previous comment. I will go further on this one.
- I've said that there is natural and sexual selection. Do you think this is true (even if you don't think evolution is)?
- I've showed that small changes can produce big changes over lots of generations. Do you think that it's possible?
I think this is the basis of evolution. The creationist will say that there are big problems like the evolution of the human knee or the evolution of the eye.
I understand the complaining, but I think it's unscientific to say "Oh, God did it!". A scientific answer on an unanswered problem is always "we don't know yet, we are busy with it". If you claim that there is direct creation, than there must be evidence for that too. You say that the days are long periods of time. Can you show that in stages there suddenly appeared a new kind of animals/humans? With first plants and trees, second fish and birds, third animals on land and humans.
It is on some points in contradiction with the geological record.
Who first?:
1. Trees vs first sea animals
2. Birds vs land animals
My second problem is imperfection. If God created directly, it must be done while He created it. Still there are lots of imperfections in our world. His creation must be done, must be perfect. If we take evolution as Gods working bench, than God is still creating. He is not done yet and that declares the imperfection.
And why shouldn't God work trough nature? Supernatural works will be discovered very soon and directly, but God doesn't want to show Himself so directly. He wants human to be free. Free to choose or to deny. There is no evidence for God in the way that 2+2=4 is proved to be true.
I had a list of more problems, maybe i will find them later on and place them here.
But however there is evidence for evolution.
It will cost me a lot of time to give you all evidence i know, so i placed a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Greetings and blessings!
Remko
Reply to this
Hi again, Remko, I respond below.
"I've said that there is natural and sexual selection. Do you think this is true (even if you don't think evolution is)?"
The evidence shows that there is change within kinds. There is no evidence that supports change of kinds into other kinds. This has always been and remains only a conceptual inference from microevolution to macroevolution, not an actual truth supported by evidence.
"- I've showed that small changes can produce big changes over lots of generations.
You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is draw out a conceptual process. You have not presented any evidence for its actuality. Anything is plausible, but what has the science shown? Where is the evidence?
I think it's unscientific to say "Oh, God did it!". A scientific answer on an unanswered problem is always "we don't know yet, we are busy with it".
When you have obsessed over the same gaps for 160 years and all of the evidence continues to point in the opposite direction, then to simply refuse to consider an alternate paradigm out of sheer bias against it is anything but scientific.
Evolution is not a truth that has come at the conclusion of a rigorous investigation. It began as a hypothesis or a model that required testing, as Darwin himself stated. So did creationsm and intelligent design. And the evidence continues to pile up in favor of the latter. The Big Bang, the Cambrian explosion, the immaterial nature of human consciousness, the biochemical complexity of the cell, the archaeological excavations that support the claims of the Bible, the overwhelming evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible, the factual evidence for miracles and the resurrection of Christ, and on it goes. There is a great deal of evidence for the existence of God and his direct creative and providential activity. I predict that scientists will continue to make discoveries that will support this hypothesis. They have been doing a great job so far.
"My second problem is imperfection. If God created directly, it must be done while He created it. Still there are lots of imperfections in our world. His creation must be done, must be perfect."
It seems to me that we are both men who passionately hold to our views. It appears to me that no amount of argument on either of our parts is going to cause the other to budge, at least in the near future. So at this point, perhaps it would be best to let the topic go and move on. Perhaps we can pick it up at another time by means of personal email, or maybe interact on a topic that we do agree on, just for refreshment!
Blessings, my Dutch brother, and I'm still curious about how you found my blog. Was it through a Facebook group?
Arnie
Reply to this
I will not react on everything, because that will cost lots of posting.
I was looking on facebook and I saw your post on the International Society of Christian Apologetics group to look on your blog.
I also started a discussion on the forum of International Society of Christian Apologetics about evolution. Maybe its more interesting to discuss with more people (apologists) about this subject. Just to hear from more sides.
Reply to this
Perhaps.... We'll see.... For now, as I said, I rest my case.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Excellent and very informative post. I appreciate the illustration about the 5M year time frame analogy to a minue in a 24/hr. day.
With appreciation,
Pastor Adam Barton
Akron Ohio
Reply to this
Thanks, Pastor Barton! I recommend the video behind the link near the end of the article with the anchor text "Cambrian explosion." It is a little over an hour, but well worth it if you have the time.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this