| EVOLUTIONIST DECEPTIONS
CONTINUE WITH THE ARTHROPODS IN THE SHAPE OF LIFE DOCUMENTARY
The "Conquerors"
episode of the documentary The Shape of Life dealt with
the arthropods, suggesting that these creatures made the transition
from sea to land, and afterwards formed a separate taxonomic category
by developing wings and beginning to fly. Evolutionist scenarios
that have been disproved countless times by scientific research
and discoveries were repeated to the accompaniment of new images,
with no evidence put forward to back them up. This article reveals
the evolutionist propaganda that took place in this documentary,
and briefly sets out the dilemma that the arthropods represent for
evolution.
The Evolutionists' Cambrian
Difficulties
The beginning of the film deals with
living things which lived around 500 million years ago. This period,
known as the Cambrian Age, was when organisms possessed of complex
physical structures suddenly emerged. These are the "phyla," the
most fundamental category of living creatures. In a most interesting
way, nearly all the phyla that have existed on the earth emerged
during the Cambrian period. Only a few phyla have been identified
from before this period, whereas it has been estimated from the
fossil record that the number of phyla appearing in the Cambrian
was close to 100. The enormous jump in the variety of life at this
time was so great that it is known in the scientific literature
as the "Cambrian Explosion."
Richard Monastersky, a staff writer
at Science News magazine , a popular evolutionist publication,
provides the following information on the Cambrian Explosion:
A half-billion
years ago, . . . the remarkably complex forms of animals that we
see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of
the Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the
evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first
complex creatures.1
The same article
also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studies the early
Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang
fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present
already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from
each other as they are today.2
No organism has ever been found that
the evolutionists might possibly put forward as an "ancestor" of
the living things that emerged in the Cambrian Explosion. The creatures
of the Cambrian period emerged suddenly, and with flawless structures.
This naturally demonstrates that creation was at the root of the
Cambrian Explosion. The British zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of
the most prominent defenders of Darwinism in the world, makes the
following admission regarding the living things of the Cambrian:
For example the
Cambrian strata of rocks . . . are the oldest ones in which we find
most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them
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.3
Another aspect of the Cambrian period
that totally undermines evolution is the fact that the number of
phyla existing today is far fewer than the number that emerged during
the "explosion." According to the theory of evolution, there should
have been an increase over time in the number of categories of living
things. Yet from the fossil record the situation is the exact opposite.
One of the world's most prominent critics
of Darwinism is University of California Berkeley professor Phillip
E. Johnson, who openly states the contradiction with Darwinism revealed
by this situation in the following words:
Darwinian theory
predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism,
or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to
create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record
more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present
at the start and thereafter decreasing.4
Not one word about this is mentioned
in the documentary. There can be only one reason why a film that
deals with how living things emerged on earth and then spread should
ignore this huge explosion in the number of phyla and variety of
living things. This explosion in the Cambrian Period definitively
reveals that life came about not by chance but all of a sudden and
in perfect form-in other words that it was created. The makers of
the documentary deliberately avoided touching on the subject.
The Evolutionists' Major Deception
Regarding Antennae and the Eye
Trilobites were among the first known
animals with efficient eyes. These had many crystal lenses
fixed at different angles to register movement and light from
different directions. This 530-million-year-old compound eye
structure is an "optical marvel" which worked with a double
lens system. This fact totally invalidates Darwinism's assumption
that complex eyes evolved from "primitive" eyes. |
Each and every one of the dead-ends
facing the theory of evolution is ignored in the documentary. When
the film, which looks at natural history from an evolutionist perspective,
speaks of the arthropods, it resorts to totally fictitious Darwinist
scenarios to account for the perfectly designed organs in these
animals' bodies.
One of these organs is the arthropod
antennae, which work together with a complex nervous system. For
instance, the 15-30-cm-long antennae of lobsters are organs that
can perform special scanning motions in the water and are equipped
with sensitive tiny hairs capable of trapping chemicals. The claim
put forward to account for the origin of such a complex organ is
very far from explaining this multi-faceted design: "To help guide
them through their world, arthropods developed a package of on-board
sensors; appendages like antennas."
It is true that the arthropods' antennae
make their lives easier. It is also true that there is a purpose
behind their design. Yet, it is impossible for an arthropod, lacking
all powers of reason, to have adopted an aim for itself and to have
designed and developed a pair of antennae in the light of that aim.
In the same way that we human beings do not "develop" eyes for ourselves
but find them ready when we are born, so the arthropods did not
develop their antennae but found them ready at their birth. That
is because both eyes and antennae, and all other organs, were created.
The PBS makes no mention of this fact, preferring instead the nonsensical
claim that the animals developed their organs for themselves.
Another organ based on evolution according
to the documentary, although no consistent evidence is given for
its origin, is the eye. The eye contains light-sensitive cells that
are found in no other organ of the body. The job of these cells
is to transform light into electrical energy and to forward this
to the brain. The eye also contains a lens system for focusing light.
The trilobite, an
arthropod from the Cambrian Period, has an eye whose design gives
Darwinism a particularly serious blow. The compound eye design in
these creatures is some 530 million years old, and just as perfect
as visual systems from our own time. Some modern insects, such as
bees and dragonflies, possess a very similar system.5
The fact that a system which functions flawlessly in our own time
also existed in a nearly identical form 530 million years ago totally
undermines the Darwinist hypothesis of evolution from the simple
to the complex.
Moreover, the complex design in the
eye also includes the feature of irreducibility. In order for the
lens and the light-sensitive cells, as well as great many other
organs, to do their jobs successfully, they need to exist in that
precise form at the very same moment. According to evolution's own
logic the eye will not work if just one of these elements is missing,
and will thus atrophy and disappear. In short, the claims of Darwinism
are in contradiction with each other.
Yet, it is an evident truth that the
design in the eye was intelligently created. The program attempts
to cover up the fact that the origin of the eye is one of the greatest
dilemmas facing Darwinism, and basically glosses over the matter
by saying that the arthropods developed eyes with precise and complex
structures to enable them to perceive images.
If somebody one day told you "Computers
made fast CPUs for themselves in order to function better," you
would think that claim was a very odd and nonsensical one. Computers
cannot develop their own systems; only computer engineers can do
that. The same thing applies to living things. Living things cannot
provide themselves with brand new features. That is only possible
by intelligent design. The only reason why this intelligent design
is being ignored is the Darwinist theory and materialist philosophy
to which those who ignore the concept of intelligent design are
so blindly devoted (as well as the atheism that underpins both).
The method employed to cover up such
matters with regard to the eye and antennae emerges when it comes
to extensions such as pincers, with their own particular design.
The documentary proposes that with a small evolutionary leap, legs
can turn into pincers capable of gripping. This is a truly ridiculous
claim. The designs in the leg and pincer are encoded in the creature's
DNA. Different DNA sequences are needed for the leg and pincer.
Furthermore, both sequences are based on information. It is impossible
for this alleged change to have come about by mutations, which evolutionists
try to portray as the basis of evolution. Mutations cause damaging
effects in an organism, or at best have no effect at all. It is
not possible for a random mutation to add to DNA the necessary information
for a leg and so regulate the system. Indeed, such a change has
never been observed.
In fact, the documentary is filled
with such evolutionist fairy tales from beginning to end. This statement
is particularly striking from the point of view of revealing the
deceptive style that dominates the film: "The basic arthropod body
plan, with segments and legs, packs an incredible potential to adapt
and evolve."
This, as we have made clear above,
is the equivalent of saying that computers possess an unbelievable
evolutionary ability. The only fact underlying this nonsense is
the prejudice of the filmmakers in the face of that truth that all
living things were created.
The Evolutionists' Spider
Web Deception
Three-dimensional webs have a much more
complicated structure than two-dimensional ones. A miraculous
structure can be observed in every feature of the web. They,
like all other creatures, behave only in accordance with the
inspiration God has given to them from birth. This is the
only cause of their architectural wonders. |
Another important deception in the
documentary concerns the spider web. It is alleged that the web
emerged later in evolution, together with baseless claims that spiders'
desires to catch flying creatures may have been influential in the
web's origin.
It must first of all be made clear
that, as has been explained above, living things' "desires" cannot
possibly cause them to acquire new organs or physical attributes.
No matter how much you and your descendants "wish" to fly, no matter
how much you make that desire a part of your inner being, you will
still never grow wings. Living things' physical features are encoded
in their genes, and no "desire" can affect those genes. The style
adopted by the documentary as it ignores this fundamental truth
is an odd, unscientific, and fantastical one.
Moreover, someone who closely examines
the spider's web can clearly see that it is the work of design,
not of "evolution by chance." The spider's web is a substance that
material scientists take as a model. Weight for weight, it is five
times more resistant than steel. The production of steel bulletproof
vests has been made possible by imitating the spider's web. Furthermore,
the spider's web exists as a liquid inside the animal's body, undergoing
a reaction as soon as it meets the air and becoming stiff. The spider
is thus capable of consuming its web whenever it wishes and storing
it for subsequent use.
The way spiders spin their webs also
rests on the most intelligent techniques. They use trees or plants
as props and build their webs around them. Spinning concentric links
that move in towards the center, they build an invisible snare and
also a secure nest for themselves.
The fact that the web possesses all
these features and that the spider possesses the ideal characteristics
to make use of the web, is a miracle-one which Darwinism can never
account for. It once again shows us that the origin of life is creation.
Like all other evolutionist accounts
about transition from water to land, the claim about scorpion's
transition from water to land also has no basis. When we examine
the huge anatomical and physiological differences between
water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these
differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary
process with gradual changes based on chance. |
The Scenario of the Scorpion
Moving from Water to Land
One of the utterly baseless evolutionist
claims made in the documentary "The Conquerors" concerns the transition
from water to land. The film does not put forward any substantial
evidence for this transition but covers up this subject with common
tactics used by evolutionists. The only example given in this area
concerns an organ that the scorpion's imaginary ancestors are assumed
to have possessed called the "wing," which allowed them to breathe
under water. It is suggested that over time this organ became buried
inside the body and gained the ability to take in oxygen from the
air. However, not one fossil was shown to back up this claim, and
the account was stranded on the level of fantasy.
Conclusion
The Cambrian Explosion shows that no
such process as evolution ever occurred in natural history. It can
be seen that such complex structures as the eye and antennae possess
an astonishing design that can never be accounted for by random
mutations. The spider's web indicates that even tiny animals possess
a superior design that engineers seek to emulate, and demonstrates
that the design in nature is so superior that it could never have
come about by chance.
In short, Darwinist propaganda does
not reflect the scientific facts. The scientific truth is that the
arthropods and all the millions of other living species are the
product of an intelligent design.
|