Another Phylum Found in Cambrian Explosion
Fossils of members of phylum entoprocta, known from the Jurassic, are now found in Cambrian strata in abundance.
The oldest certain fossils from phylum entoprocta are in Jurassic strata, claimed by evolutionists to be 145 million years old. In 1977, A fossil from the Burgess Shale (Cambrian) was claimed by Simon Conway Morris to be an entoproct, but others denied it (see Wikipedia). Now, according to Live Science, hundreds of clearly-identifiable entoprocts have been found in Cambrian strata in China, dated in the evolutionary scale at 520 million years old – three and a half times older than previously assumed.
The fossils show tulip-shaped animals that were attached to the seafloor by a stalk. The tulip part contains a U-shaped digestive tract, with mouth and anus side by side. Tentacles allowed the animals to filter feed as they swayed in the current.
According to reporter Stephanie Pappas, the fossil animals have a body plan that is “almost identical” to living species – except that the fossils were up to 8 times larger – as much as 56 mm. Also, “Unlike what is found in living entoprocts, the stem and flowerlike feeding cup of the ancient creature were covered by tiny hardened protuberances called sclerites, which may have formed a sort of hard exoskeleton for the creatures.”
OK, evolutionists: it’s time to face up to the fossil evidence. Here is another example of an animal phylum appearing suddenly in the oldest layers containing multicellular animals. It bursts onto the scene, fully formed, and doesn’t change its basic body plan for 520 million years! This is true of virtually all the animal phyla now. How does that fit with Darwin’s theory?
Stephanie Pappas tried to protect Darwin by claiming the creature was “likely an ancestor of a group known as the entoprocta.” Come on. Don’t put us on. How can this be an ancestor, when it was larger and more complex than the modern counterparts? That would put Darwin’s tree upside down. and where’s the evolution? Its body plan is virtually identical to the living ones – no evolution in 520 million years in your mythical timeline.
Let’s stop playing games and protecting Charlie in a phony King’s X zone. His theory has been falsified (see the documentary Darwin’s Dilemma for more proof of that). He himself considered the sudden appearance of animals as the greatest challenge to his theory. He hoped new fossils would fill in the gaps, but 150 years of global research has only made the problem worse. His time is up; he’s struck out. Take him out of the science books, and put him in the history books. His tale should be told as a sad case of The Biggest Loser who misled the world for a century and a half.
Comments
I like the first two paragraphs of your commentary portion of the article. I think it states the case of evolution very well. What I don’t like is the last sentence. That kind of personal attack should be left to the atheists who do that kind of a thing very well. If we are going to gripe about evolutionist doing character assassination and name calling we should not do it ourselves. Indeed, living in glass houses can be hazardous to our health if we choose to throw stones.
Tyler, your point is well taken, but Charlie has been dead for 130 years, and has since become synonymous with the theory that bears his name. I would not do so with a living or recently deceased person, but in his case, with so much political and world view baggage riding on his theory, to rebuke his name is, for all practical purposes, no different from rebuking his theory. That’s because “Darwin” has pretty much morphed into an icon or idol instead of a man anybody cares about personally these days. Now read this: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200511.htm#20051130b
I was going to send this to an evolution believing Christian friend and as I was writing to email I suddenly realized what his answer would be! I suggested that this was a case of devolution rather than evolution and was going to ask how this thing evolved when it became less complex over 520 million years instead of more complex.
And I know exactly what he would say. He would say (speculating of course) that in this case it had become less complex because the lesser complexity contributed to its survival. He would say the outer shell and larger size obviously made it less likely to survive, therefore it had shed the unnecessary baggage.
But I guess the question should be how did it start off more complex rather than less.
Jonathan said; “I suggested that this was a case of devolution rather than evolution…”
Q. How does one know if a change should be considered devolution or evolution?
A. This isn’t my field so I’m not sure, but I think that if a loss of information is involved a change should be considered devolution.
Dictionaries tend to define devolution as degeneration.
Degeneration;
n. Biology The evolutionary [sic] decline or loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species.