Cambrian Explosion Disproves Evolution

Introduction

One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion”   Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail.  This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.”  It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory.  Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge.  Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

Cambrian Explosion

“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column.  The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old.  What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it.  The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man.  Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer.  No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously. 

Layers Above and Below

Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens.  The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms.  So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything.  But wait, it gets even more interesting.  To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer.  Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct.  Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct?  This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact.  A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.  It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence.  In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief.  Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.

Darwin Knew

Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time.  Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory.  They were wrong!  Exactly the opposite happened.  After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better.  Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story.  The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all. 

No Correlation

Remember, evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup.  This ancient ancestor gradually evolved.  Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms.  The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great diversity of life we have today.  Now, if this is true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record?  Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the geologic time scale.  But what do we really find in the fossil record?  We find the exact opposite.   Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer.  No, you find the exact opposite of what is predicted by evolution.  From a correlation perspective you do not find a factor of 1, meaning perfect correlation, or a 0, meaning no correlation, you find a -1, meaning perfectly uncorrelated to the prediction.  Now I don’t know about you, but I find this compelling proof that evolution did not happen.  This begs the question, how much proof do evolutionary scientists need anyway?

Belief In Spite of Evidence

You must be saying to yourself at this point, “How could that be?  How could they speak about this theory with such surety with such strong evidence to the contrary?”  The answer is simple.  They believe the theory in spite of the evidence.  That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion.  This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly.  Why are they ridiculed?   They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation.  Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins.  This is simply not so.  The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this. 

Conclusion

If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible.  True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be.  That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true.  The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time.  The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough.  It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself.  But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution. 

In closing I would like to share with you some of my favorite quotes on the subject by leading evolutionary scientists, and even Darwin himself.  By their own words they admit this very important piece of the evolutionary puzzle does not fit, and never will.  Enjoy.

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid., p. 344),
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350),
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Ibid., p. 351),
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),
“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),
“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),
“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),
“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5).
Will Hoyt