In literature, fossil material is often cited as the best evidence for evolution. However, this conclusion may not be accurate. If animals evolve into entirely new species over millions of years, this process should produce many intermediate stages that would be preserved as fossils. Some fossils would resemble the original species, while others would resemble the final species. The problem is that such intermediate forms are scarcely found. Studies of fossils show that new animal species appear suddenly without any precursors. This is very evident in one of the deepest layers of the earth – called the Cambrian.
In the Cambrian, we find the first multicellular animal species, while in deeper layers there are only single-celled organisms. The special thing about the Cambrian is that all these new species are fully developed from the start. There are no intermediate stages for these. So there is no evidence that they could be the result of a long evolution. If that were the case, we would expect many intermediate forms, but they are missing. Some of these new species are found as fossils for millions of years without showing signs of change. The fossils do not change even over a very long time. The youngest fossils look the same as the oldest. The formation of the various animals in the Cambrian happened within a short time according to evolutionary time calculations. Therefore, the origin of a number of new fully developed animal species is called “The Cambrian Explosion.”
It is an explosive emergence of organisms with completely new anatomical structures, called “body plans” in English. A classification system divides animals into domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species. The term for phyla is “phyla” in plural. Today, there are a total of 36 phyla. Three phyla arose before the Cambrian; four in later geological periods, and nine are represented by existing forms. The majority of the Cambrian explosion happened 530–525 million years ago. Then more than 20 phyla with new life emerged out of nothing.
This explosion has only one explanation: The formation of all these animals can only be due to the addition of large amounts of new detailed and specified information. New life requires new information. This means that the best explanation is an intelligent cause. One can say that the Cambrian explosion is biology’s Big Bang. Evolution cannot explain what happened in the Cambrian.
There are now many examples of new species appearing suddenly. It seems to be the rule that new species arise without signs of an evolutionary process. There are several such periods in the fossil record where new species appear within a short time. For 485–460 million years ago, about 300 new families of invertebrate sea animals emerged. A similar explosion 425–415 million years ago gave rise to fish with jaws and teeth. For 318–300 million years ago, an explosion led to the emergence of insects in the fossil record. Therefore, it is directly wrong to claim that fossils confirm that macroevolution is a reality, as it still stands in textbooks. The opposite actually seems to be true, that fossils reject macroevolution. These fossil findings reject Darwin’s tree and the idea that all life is related. An acute origin of new animal species is in conflict with Darwin’s tree of life, which is based on new life stemming from already existing life. We can call it from the bottom up, while the fossils show the opposite: That life starts fully developed. We can say from the top.
The trilobite is one of the animals that appeared in the Cambrian. At the Natural History Museum in Oslo, you can see several trilobites. They have two eyes, and it has been found that their lens is quite fantastic, so great that no optician today can make anything better.
Fossils of the fish Tiktaalik show that it has two very large and powerful front fins, which have led some evolutionists to claim that they may be precursors to forelimbs in animals. When I saw pictures of Tiktaalik, it suddenly dawned on me: Macroevolution requires the formation of new biological organs – or parts of organs. Since it is believed that land animals stem from life in the sea, both lungs and extremities must be formed, which fish and sea animals do not have. This means that macroevolution requires a large amount of new proteins. Organs consist of proteins. Then we encounter the following problem: Not a single new protein is formed without the gene – the recipe – for this protein already existing in DNA. The necessary information to create something new must come first. You cannot create anything in biology without detailed information. You need new information to create something new. Macroevolution requires the addition of a lot of new information in DNA – new genes – and without such new information, macroevolution would be impossible. This relationship represents one of the most important arguments against macroevolution.
Mutations
Previously, we discussed DNA and specified that Naturalism claims DNA’s information has come about by itself and rejects that it comes from an intelligent source. What explanation do evolutionists present for the formation of this new information necessary for macroevolution, since they reject intelligent design? Well, they resort to changes in the existing DNA in the form of mutations.
Mutations can occur spontaneously by themselves, or they are caused by radiation, chemical substances, heat, our modern lifestyle, and so on. Mutations are comparable to a typo or printing error in a text. Mutations are a change in DNA’s letters, so that, for example, an A can be replaced by a G, C, or T. Mutations will thus change the information in DNA. Most mutations are harmful and cause diseases and deformities. The list of diseases caused by mutations is very long. Some mutations are neutral. That is, they do not lead to any visible changes in the individual. We hardly know of any beneficial mutations. Mutations are random, and there is every reason to be skeptical when they are attributed the ability to create something new.
If mutations are to lead to the formation of a completely new animal species, it can theoretically happen in only two ways:
- Mutations in fetal life. These mutations must occur in the early part of pregnancy, as it is then that the various organs are formed. Mutations later in pregnancy will either cause deformities or no visible changes. But then we encounter a big problem, namely that mutations early in pregnancy lead to such large and dramatic changes that they are not compatible with life. They either lead to abortion or death after birth.
- Mutations in sex cells, that is, either in egg or sperm cells, will lead to changes in the genetic material. Quite a few mutations are needed that must cooperate to create something new; they must be “coordinated,” as it is called in technical language. If mutations are to give lungs to a sea animal that is to crawl on land, it will require many such coordinated mutations. Then we also encounter a problem: The time it would take to get the necessary number of coordinated mutations is so long that the available time (4–4.5 billion years, which is the age of the earth) is far too short. In humans, it would take 84 million years to get two coordinated mutations, according to current literature.
Geneticist John Sanford has made calculations showing that even after 16 billion years, there would not be enough mutations to explain that humans can stem from apes. The same applies to the development of whales. Forming a whale from a land animal is such a demanding process that it is not possible within the available time.
Then we come to the following conclusion: Mutations cannot explain macroevolution.
Evolutionists have attempted to downgrade DNA by claiming that most of it is “junk DNA.” Only 2-3% of DNA contains genes for protein synthesis, while the remaining 98% was considered evolutionary remnants without biological significance. This assumption led to a lack of investigation into DNA for about 25 years. However, recent research has shown that the majority of DNA has biological functions. Regularly, new findings about the significance of DNA are presented
From the book of prof emeritus Kjell J. Tveter “So much to wonder about”
