34: Evolution Explodes, Gets Hung on a Phylogenetic Tree
The page begins below.
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.-William Blake
As I discussed previously, if you had the capability of walking the Earth 600 million years ago, it would have looked like a near sterile planet. All bodies of water were inundated by unicellular organisms not visible to the unaided human eye. At that time, almost all of life was composed of single celled plants and animals, requiring a microscope for viewing. Then, circa 542 million years ago, in a geologic flash, out of nowhere, came the vast majority of phyla and body types in what was called the Cambrian Explosion. In biology, A phylum is a level that pretty much separates the different body types from each other. A phylum is a taxonomic rank below kingdom and above class.(1) The Cambrian Explosion is like a Big Bang for life on Earth. Immense numbers of new species and body types appeared in a very short time span. Evo-illusionists have wracked their brains trying to think of excuses for this incredible time period, instead of looking at it with a scientific eye and talking about it as if it might be a reason that Darwin was wrong. They do everything they can to make the Cambrian Explosion look like it is somehow evidence that favors evolution. It doesn’t. The Cambrian Explosion is nothing but bad news for evo-illusionists. And the more it is studied, the worse things get. Just think. They have to explain the nearly complete lack of evolution for most of 3 billion years before the Cambrian, the immense rush of new species and body types in a 5 to10 million year period during the Cambrian, and then not much for 500 million years after the Cambrian Explosion. Is there any fact that will make this science wonder and question? Darwin himself was upset about the Cambrian Explosion. His thoughts from his book, On the Origin of Species (pp. 82, 85): “several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” He called this a “serious” problem which “at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” He conceded that he really had “no satisfactory answer to the problem.” Don’t worry Charles. You have enough fans. They’ll make up fables for you that will get you over this hump.
Some of the organisms that exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian were worms like bristle worms and roundworms, lamp shells, mollusks, sea cucumbers and jellyfish. Animals with exoskeletons, the arthropods, appeared. Arthropods are those spindly legged, insects, spiders, crabs, and lobsters. There were ribbon shaped swimmers with rod-like spines that preceded chordates. Chordates supposedly were precursors to all vertebrates. According to evolution, they lead to fish, amphibians and eventually to humans. The kingdom Animalia contains approximately 35 phyla; the kingdom Plantae contains 12 divisions. Examples of nineteen of the 35 known animal phyla clearly make their first appearance in the fossil record during the Cambrian Explosion. Three phyla appear before the Cambrian. Six animal phyla first appear in the fossil record after the Cambrian period. (2)
Astoundingly, several animal phyla are not represented in the fossil record at all! Shouldn’t there be a steady line of fossils, from the beginning of life until modern species? Why aren’t there fossil examples of giraffes that show the gradual evolutionary lengthening of that incredible neck? Why are there no deer, or pig or bear, fossils? Why did the formation of fossils get cut off, like a light switch turning off? It’s as if nature is again going to tease us and give us a tiny part of the solution to this great Puzzle; but never the entire solution. Other modern organisms that aren’t represented in the fossil record are animals such as cats, dogs, lions, tigers, bears, pigs, people, elephants, and mice. Nevertheless, many paleontologists think that almost all of the phyla supposedly not represented in the Cambrian Explosion may well have originated during the Cambrian Explosion. In reality, if evolution is truly a valid source of all of living nature, the few phyla that existed before the Cambrian should have evolved into the phyla that exploded into existence during the Cambrian. The phyla that exploded into existence during the Cambrian, should have been the ancestors of all phyla that came after; which means that the Cambrian Explosion must been some kind of portal that gave rise to all modern body types. All evolution “authorities” must declare that every modern species originated in the Cambrian. If that is not the case, evolution isn’t the source of all living species.
To give you a real idea about the significance of the Cambrian Explosion, single celled species appeared on Earth approximately 3.5 billion years ago. If this time period was placed on the clock face of a 24 hour clock, the first 21 hours would have species that could only be seen by microscope. Then, in the 21st hour, in a period of about two minutes, virtually all of the animal body types now inhabiting the Earth appeared. They had complex eyes, spinal cords, pumping hearts, complex jointed limbs with muscles to run them; and brains.
Evolution teaches that all modern species formed over eons from this first population of unicellular organisms. These unicellular organisms are considered to be the “common ancestor” to all current living species; to you and me. And we are all its descendants. Pictured above is a diagram of a phylogenetic tree. It acts as a road-map, showing how the original and earlier species evolved, branched, and formed new species and groups of species. As you move in time up the phylogenetic tree, you will continue to run into branches and common ancestors for different groups of species. The meeting of each branch with another branch which forms a “Y” is actually the location of an earlier common ancestor for the species that appear later on the two split branches. This diagram is the type that is printed in the biology books of most public schools. Geographic shuffling, such as the formation of lakes, the rise of volcanoes, and the movement of land masses, caused the breaking up of populations of earlier multi-celled organisms. According to evolution, the newly branched off populations then evolved in their own separate ways into later appearing and more modern species. The new and different conditions that each group lived under, and their differing genetic modifications, caused each split off group to undergo their own set of changes that produced new and different populations of species over immense time periods. Species continued to multiply in numbers, and they began to form complex organs and bio-logical systems made up of multiple organs that worked in conjunction with each other. You may recall a good example of a bio-logical system would be a heart/lung/blood vessel/blood/brain controller/cardiac-nerve system.
For billions of years, simple creatures like plankton, bacteria and algae ruled the Earth. Then, suddenly, life got very complicated. (1) The Precambrian strata has been thoroughly searched, and no Precambrian species have been located that can be shown to have evolved into “new” Cambrian Explosion species, to the great disappointment of the Darwinian world. But isn’t this usual for evolution? The Cambrian precursors aren’t there, fossils that demonstrate evolution aren’t there, and fossils that demonstrate the earliest multicellularism, 16 celled animals, and 500 celled animals, aren’t there. Evolution’s list of “not there’s” is endless. For example, the evolution of vertebrate fish from invertebrate animals, which wore exoskeletons and left no traces of turning their exoskeletons inside out to produce vertebrae, remains a gaping hole in the evolutionary timeline. Thus the Cambrian Explosion raises immense questions about Darwin’s grand theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins is the current pope of evolution and no doubt its number one guru. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, he states, in a quote that will probably haunt him for the rest of his life: “The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, 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.” This is such an honest statement for an evo-illusionist. What does this do to the famous “tree of life” diagram that is in most high school and college biology textbooks throughout the world? The Cambrian Explosion completely destroys the notion that the shape of a tree examples the appearance of the immense diversity of life on Earth. The tree should be drastically modified. If the tree were drawn honestly the proportion of the tree trunk to the branches would be very strange like the drawing at left. Reality is the tree would be more like a palm tree with an immensely long trunk. The trunk would be six times longer than the height of the branches, since the Earth was a single celled planet for three billion years. The roots would represent evo-abiogenesis, the time when biochemicals supposedly formed, then came together to evolve living cells. The limbs at the top would do a sudden branching out that would represent the Cambrian Explosion. Modern animals would share very short branches at the very top. But, of course, Darwin’s tree is completely out of proportion, but it remains in place representing more fake evidence of Darwinian evo-illusion. Evo-illusionists would answer that it’s “just a representation.” This is science. Wouldn’t an honest scientific representation, one not designed to fool naive students be the way to go here?
Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation seems increasingly unsatisfactory. No matter what, they have to deal with the almost complete lack of evolution that preceded the Cambrian Explosion for almost three billion years. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of incredible biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world. So, what was going on? What events could have come together that would produce so many species all over the world in such a short time? Was there some kind of worldwide communication? One would think evolution would occur in certain areas of the world while not occurring in others, depending on environmental conditions. In the last chapter I was discussing the fact that cyanobacteria has lived on Earth for 3.5 billion years without change; an astoundingly long period of time. And, here we have the Cambrian Explosion forming the blueprint for all body types and their organ systems in 5 to 10 million years; a period of time one four thousandth as long as the 3.5 billion years in which cyanobacteria did nothing. Does the evidence fit evolution here?
Before I even get into a discussion of the phylogenetic tree, I would like to kill it off the easy way. In fact, science itself should have killed it off long ago. Here are five simple facts that make up the very logical death knell for the phylogenetic tree:
(1) One small furry 25 lb. fox-like species, Pakicetus, was the common ancestor for 79 species of whales, including the blue whale that weighs 400,000 lbs. and is over 100 ft. long.
(2) One theropod dinosaur species was the common ancestor for10,000 bird species.
(3) Nautilus has been on the Earth for over 500 million years without change.
(4) Trilobites lived for over 300 million years on the Earth without much change.
(5) 540 million years ago two thirds of the body types of all animal species appeared in a 5 to 10 million year timespan which represents 1-2% of the time from then until now.
There. That should do it. Putting these five facts together should destroy the phylogenetic tree. How could the zero change of (3) and (4) exist with the radical change of (1) and (2)? Of course there are so many more facts I could call on, but these five very simple facts should do the job. No more information needs to be proffered. The phylogenetic tree is petrified wood, except for the fact that scientists keep it going as if these five facts don’t really exist. The tree is continually presented in biology text books and taught in classrooms as if it’s real science. With a little prodding from their trainer-teachers, the students accept the tree as 100% valid science. So, in order to really kill the tree, I will use this chapter to show why it’s simply not a possible tool of choice for evo-illusionists. Just like evolution cannot be the solution to The Puzzle, the tree should be scrapped. Good honest scientists should be the ones to do the scrapping.
This is from an article on the work being done to figure out the Cambrian Explosion:
Today an unprecedented effort to try to figure out the Cambrian Explosion and its mysteries is under way. Geologists and geochemists are reconstructing the Precambrian planet, looking for changes in the atmosphere and ocean that might have put species formation in sudden hyper-drive. Developmental biologists are studying vast amounts of genetic material of a broad array of specimens related to Cambrian species. And paleontologists are digging deeper into shale layers in hopes of getting clues from the fossil record. They are searching for organisms and conditions that might have primed the evolutionary pump. “We’re getting data,” says Harvard University paleontologist Andrew Knoll, “almost faster than we can digest it.” (2) Hinting that some kind of answer is right around the corner, just like all unanswered questions for evolution. And as soon as they go through that data, well….. My bet is all of that data will leave them frustrated and stuck at the starting line. Is there an answer? My bet is no. My bet is all they will come up with are imaginary notions, which is all they have now. But I do kind of commend them for trying. Kind of. I don’t commend the fact evo-illusionists constantly try to make the evidence fit the theory.
It’s pretty strange that at the end of the Cambrian until now nature spent hundreds of millions of years not getting much more complex. Species had brains, eyes, hearts, all pretty much the same stuff. There wasn’t much change until recently when primates and man showed up with his upright walking, intelligence, and consciousness. There were changes after the Cambrian Explosion. They mostly involved locomotion (flight and land motion) and air breathing. Hundreds of millions years elapsed with the display new and different species, but species didn’t become really more complex. Theropod dinosaurs were no less complex than giraffes. Coelacanth is a 410 million year old fish that still roams the oceans unchanged and no different than modern fish. Insects of 350 million years ago were not much different than modern versions; maybe larger, maybe smaller, but not much different. Complex species were rare previous to the Cambrian, but some did appear. Then the Explosion erupted, and from there on and for nearly half of a billion years, not much else happened. Then, according to evolution, circa 250,000 years ago, one two-thousandth of the time from the Cambrian Explosion until now, the last few seconds on our 24 hour clock, man with intelligence and consciousness appeared. Nature lays down the strangest and most incredible Puzzle. It then gives us a cognitive brain that can’t figure out the Puzzle it presented; truly a form of torture of the intelligent.
Evo-illusionists try to explain the sudden appearance of so many species and bio-logical systems by saying that evolution might have happened in a flash, then gone on without change for long periods of time. They’ve labeled this “punctuated equilibrium”. This is a strategy often used by evo-illusionists. When there is an unanswerable problem for evolution, they simply put a label on it. The label then becomes the solution to the problem. When asked why evolution doesn’t occur for such immense periods, the answer will be, “Oh, that’s punctuated equilibrium!” The label becomes the answer, and the questioner may be a bit dumbfounded. The notion of punctuated equilibrium is completely preposterous. Non-occurring good mutations and supernatural selection should occur at a rather constant rate. Rises and falls in solar events could speed up and slow down the rate of mutations to a degree, but that scenario wouldn’t be close to explaining the sudden appearance of so many species and organs. And, again, solar rays almost always cause mutational disasters.
In Darwin’s own words:“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (3)
According to modern biological science, single celled species formed circa 3.5 billion years ago. Somehow, 2.5 billion years later, some single cells got the notion of linking up to form multi-celled species. Well, maybe a notion doesn’t describe the stimulus for the event, but after 2.5 billion years, what would? Some biologists think maybe a few cells did not completely split when they were going through cell division causing the first multicellular group.
I wonder why an accidental incomplete split of cells that resulted in multicellularism took so long to occur. The process of the cell division had to evolve slowly over many generations. Wouldn’t it be logical that during the initial evolution of cell division, there would be trillions of bad attempts at cell division that would result in innumerable cells “sticking” together? Shouldn’t multicellularism have occurred very early in the timeline of life? Why would multicellularism occur billions of years after the complete evolution of cell division? In reality, cells were “experts” at cell division when multicellularity did evolve. Again, evolution is going against the flow here. Of course multicellularity had to occur all over the world. Or maybe a few doubled up cells were able to travel immense distances and spread their new bicellular model all over the world. At any rate, the bottom line is, somehow unicelled organisms became multi-celled groups. The populations of single celled species that went bicellular and quadricellular were actually our “grandparents” many trillions of generations ago. Then, once cells went multicellular, cells in multicellular organisms somehow differentiated into multiple cell types according to their needed function. Some cells became neurons, others heart tissue, others muscle, still others skin.
According to evo-illusionists, this is the order of evolution for the earliest life on Earth. It’s also the beginning of the phylogenetic tree:
(1) Biochemicals: Evo-abiogenesis formed the very first biochemicals. The formation of biochemistry represents the roots of the tree.
(2) Proto-cells evolve: The very first biochemicals congregated together, nestled themselves into tiny fat cells and came to life, forming the first living cells that are called proto-cells. These exist only in the imagination of evo-illusionists and their evolutionauts. They do not exist today or in the fossil record
(3) Bacteria evolve: Proto-cells evolved into bacteria. So the first known living cells on Earth were bacteria. Bacteria are called prokaryotic cells. They have no cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles. Most bacteria are unicellular; they exist as single units. They cannot form multicellular organism.
(4) Protists evolve from bacteria: Protists are made up of much larger cells called eukaryotic cells. A protist is any organism that is not a plant, animal or fungus. A eukaryotic cell contains complex structures enclosed within membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, where a good portion of the cell’s DNA is stored. All species of large complex organisms are eukaryotes, including animals, plants and fungi; yes, we humans are eukaryotes. Tell your friends that they are eukaryotes. Will they be surprised! Most species of eukaryotes are protist. Slime molds, paramecium, protozoa are examples of protists. Above is what is called dog vomit slime mold. It has nothing to do with dog vomit. It’s simply a protist slime mold. No doubt why it got its name. Paramecium consume food much like multicellular animals. Some have mouth-like structures they use to gobble up their prey. Typical prey for a paramecium include bacteria and other smaller one-celled organisms.
(5) Eukaryotic cells become multicellular: Eukaryotic cells made the evolution of multi-cellular species possible. For that reason, Ernst Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist of the evolutionary world in the last century said, “The evolution of the eukaryotic cells was the single most important event in the history of the organic world.” (Discover Magazine, April 2011, p. 66) Actually, eukaryotes had to evolve in one single train of steps from one single bacterium. Why? Because all of the offspring of a single bacterium would again have had to evolve in exactly the same pathway to form eukaryotes. Every time our single ancestor cell went through cell division, it would’ve had to evolve a portion of a eukaryotic cell. In my mind experiment, one cell division of Great Great Grandpa would yield two cells that were let’s say.001% of a eukaryotic cell. So now there would be two cells that were .001% eukaryotic. Then, one of those cells would have had to make a mutated copy during its next division, which would yield two .002% eukaryotic cells. Then, one of the .002% eukaryotic cells would mutate and divide forming a .003% eukaryotic cell. This sequence had to go on and on through generations of cells until a full eukaryotic cell had evolved. Then, when a cell reached a state of becoming a complete eukaryotic cell, the evolution had to have come to a dead stop. The Earth became replete with eukaryotic cells which were then poised to become multicellular organisms, and dominate the planet. One wonders why these changes occurred to bacteria, which were an incredibly strong and dominant organism. What was the need? And how were eukaryotes spread all over the Earth, once they did evolve, since that evolution had to take place in one single very small point on Earth. Evo-illusionists cannot possibly claim that bacteria evolved into eukaryotes identically all over the Earth. Now can they?
Try a mind experiment. You can answer this question easily yourself. In the population of cells that first went multicellular, was there first just one cell that split and stuck together to make a two celled species? Did we all come from that one bicelled organism? Or did millions of bicells form at the same time because they “accidentally” came up with the exact same notion? Did the first real multicellular species have two cells, each with its own function? Did the DNA of each cell modify to code for the new functions of each? Did the first double cell procreate as a whole species? In other words, did the first bicellular organism produce daughter bicellular organisms? And if not, at what point in the formation of multicells did procreation as a “unit organism” begin? C. elegans, the thousand cell worm I discussed previously, procreates sexually. So, somewhere between bicellular organisms and thousand celled organisms sexual procreation had to have formed. One wonders at what point sexual procreation came into the mix. It had to be before unicells or bicells became thousand cell animals.
According to evolution, some sort of “budding” procreation could have arisen, which would have allowed for these new species to procreate as a unit rather than utilizing only random cell division and procreating cell by cell. Budding is where an organism grows a “lump” of tissue which then breaks off of the parent, and grows into a new fully formed offspring of the parent. Again, that would have taken incredible new DNA coding.
If the first bicelled organism didn’t procreate as a unit, how did multicellularism ever spread? Bicells had to produce bicells; octocells had to produce octocells or else cells sticking together would have only been a passing accident, and multicellular life would have never taken hold. At some point, organisms had to start procreating as a unit, not as individual cells. For any kind of unit procreation to occur, of course, incredible DNA coding, and some kind of communication between cells had to be invented. Cells had to be coded so they could perform and procreate as a team. They couldn’t continue acting on their own, as individual cells. If there was no coordination and communication, there would be bicells with only one cell dividing, and the other not. This would yield a three celled species, which doesn’t seem too bad until you get to more numerous celled organisms. Imagine a 600 celled species procreating with each individual cell dividing on its own time schedule. You would have an immense mish mash of different sizes and numbers of cells in different organisms. The genetic codes for this 600 celled glob would also be a tangled mess. The problem for future descendants would quickly become enormous. Actually any kind of procreation as an entire organism would have been a new and incredible invention, since up to that point procreation was accomplished at the unicellular level.
Each bicell as it procreated would have its own “family tree” just as each unicellular organism did and does today. Each family tree would have its own set of non-occurring good mutations. Each family tree would have its own completely independent set of descendants. Each cell would have its own family tree because organisms cannot meld together. They can’t coalesce into one single cell. Populations don’t procreate; individuals do. The number of descendants for each double cell species and the number of individual family trees would quickly become enormous.
Once a unicell divides, for all intents and purposes there is no communication between it and its offspring or any other cells. They’re on their own as far as finding nutrition and further procreation. Each family tree would be on its own as well. For multiple family trees to be multiple common ancestors to modern multicellular species, they would have had to evolve exactly like their co-common ancestors. Millions of random genetic steps would have to be exactly alike over eons. That is just not possible. Since modern bacteria essentially haven’t evolved at all, but one single ancient bacteria evolved into humans and all modern species, the sales pitch evo-illusionists have to put forth must be world class.
Actually there are limited actions that allow the mixing of genetic material between individual unicells. One process is conjugation, which is a process akin to bacterial sex. Unicells can bump into each other and transfer bits of DNA from one cell to the other. Gene transfer in bacteria is unidirectional from a donor cell to a recipient cell and the donor usually gives only a small part of its DNA to the recipient. Bacteria can also scavenge DNA remnants from degraded, dead bacteria. There are a couple of other events that can cause the transfer of DNA from one cell to another, but basically, they are all are rare occurrences. (4)
Evo-illusionists cite these exchanges of genetic material between unicells as a method that new evolutionary innovation can be spread throughout bacterial populations. Actually all they have to do is calculate the length of time bacteria have inhabited the Earth, about 3.5 billion years, and divide that number into the observable changes that have taken place with bacteria during that time. The answer would be as close as you can get to zero. For example, again, cyanobacteria are still cyanobacteria. In fact all bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago are still bacteria, except for those very few single bacteria that supposedly became common ancestors to all of the multicellular species living on Earth today. The exchange of genetic material between bacteria is insignificant. Just imagine a bacteria going through a major change in its DNA that is beneficial to the bacteria. Is it logical that that very bacteria would then bump into another bacteria and transfer a bit of DNA that has just happened to be the chunk that carried a beneficial mutation? The descendants of bacteria from billions of years ago are still bacteria. So it couldn’t have happened very often. Oh, except for the bacteria that eventually evolved into humans. (TIC)
As I said, humans could have arisen from only one bicellular organism, just as is the case with the single cell scenario. We all had to arise from one single cell, if evolution is truly the source of all of living nature; then a doubled up bicell, then a quadricell…….and on and on. If this scenario is true, think what might have happened to the history of the Earth and life on it if that one single bicell had died, for some reason. There would be no you, no me, no rats, no trees, no prunes, no cheese! In, looking at what the immense number of unicellular species that are still unicellular did as far as evolution goes, there should be zero multicellular life at all on Earth today anyway. A walk on the modern Earth should require a microscope to view life, just as it did 600 million years ago. Life should be invisible. There should be no visible multicellular species of note whatsoever. So again, we had to arise from one single cell that multiplied enormously. One single cell descendant of that single cell then had to become bicellular and procreate as a bicellular organism; not as two independent stuck together unicellular organisms. Only one of those bicellular cells could have been the common ancestor to all humans and all multicellular species. It could not have been two or thousands. It had to be only one. And, of the descendents of the bicellular organism, how ever many that may have been, only one single one of those could be a common ancestor of man and modern species. When four celled organisms evolved, only one single quadricelled descendant of that single bicell then had to procreate as a quadricellular organism; not as four independent stuck together unicellular organisms. Only one of those quadricellular cells could have been the common ancestor to all humans and all multicellular species. It could not have been four or thousands. It had to be only one. And, of the descendents of the quadricellular organism, how ever many that may have been, only one single one of those could be a common ancestor of man and modern species. This scenario goes on and on, with one octocellular organism, one sixteen-celled organism………. In every case, only one could be an ancestor of modern man and any multicellular modern species. And because of this absurd scenario, evolution’s phylogenetic tree explodes again.
Is it plausible that non-occurring good mutations, supernatural selection, and friends could have made up different tasks for each group of cells, and then changed those different groups of cells in multicellular organism so that each group could do a different but necessary function that would enhance the whole? Were non-occurring good mutations and supernatural selection capable of changing the genome of some cells which turned them into neurons? Of course neurons had to be invented first; THEN came the change in the genome. What about skin cells. Were non-occurring good mutations and supernatural selection capable of changing the genome of some cells which turned them into skin cells? Sperm and egg cells? Muscle cells? Again, sperm and egg cells, muscles cells, and skin cells, had to be invented first; THEN came the change in the genome. Is this a plausible scenario? Of course not. It must be ignored for evolution to be valid. Evo-illusionists don’t even have a label or new term that could describe this scenario that answers the challenge. So it’s simply ignored.
Why aren’t there unicelled species joining up into multicellular organisms today, forming new multicellular species? Some bacteria do cling together, but none that will turn into multicelled organisms. Why did this incredible and historic change occur hundreds of millions of years ago when no one could observe the feat? If evolution was truly the answer to this Puzzle, of the trillions of trillions of single celled organisms on Earth today, shouldn’t there be an overwhelming number of newly forming tiny multi-celled species right now? There are no fish growing legs and crawling out of the oceans. There are no unicellular organisms going multicellular. Evolution! Where are you! If we could go back in time, what would we actually see; with a microscope, of course. What did our grandparents actually look like? Wouldn’t that be a strange event, if it could somehow take place? If evolution was valid and you could go back on a time machine 600 million years, and look under a microscope at your great-X 10 14 grandparent? “That little teensy double cell is my grandma! Or grandpa! That can’t be grandma or grandpa! It’s asexual. Never mind…..”
I’m sure evolution has a simple explanation for why we don’t see multi-celled organisms forming today. Modern weather patterns are different, or they no longer NEED to go multicellular because there are lots of extant multicellular organisms. They would be outcompeted. But wouldn’t some cells at least try? Wouldn’t some be testing the waters of multicellularism today? If they would be outcompeted, why are there unicellular organisms that are surviving just fine? Worms are everyone’s food. They survive well because there are so many. Why couldn’t the smaller multicelled organisms do the same? The formula remains almost like a given in geometry. The smallest multicellular species are one thousand cells. Period. Is it the case that unicellular organisms are NOT outcompeted, but all organisms from two to one thousand cells are outcompeted, and so there are none? And all species from one thousand cells to trillions are not outcompeted? Shouldn’t humans be able to observe that competition? Shouldn’t scientists be able to observe species with dozens to hundreds of cells constantly forming and constantly being used as food for larger predator species? Evo-illusionists always talk about how ridiculous odds involved with their science are overcome by vast amounts of time and immense numbers of chance events. So here is evolution’s chance to show its skeptics. Like me. But evolution cannot. Evolution fails every chance it gets.
To continue I would like to get a couple of definitions established. Firstly, what exactly is a species? According to University of California Museum of Paleontology, a species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not—in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, all species of bacteria reproduce asexually…….. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually. But for the purposes of this text, this definition will suffice.
Next, what is speciation? According to Science Daily: “Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are three main ideas concerning the emergence of new species (modes of speciation), each based on the degree to which populations undergoing this process are geographically isolated from one another” The three types are allopatric speciation, parapatric speciation, and sympatric speciation. (5)
Allotropic and parapatric involve geographic separation of a main population. The difference between the two involves the degree of separation. The rise of a mountain, the formation of lakes and rivers can divide a population and give rise to speciation events. Sympatric involves a single species separating into two different species, but they exist in the same location and environment.(6) Again, all you need to know for this text is that populations are split by natural happenstances, such as land formations and migrations, river and sea formation, and weather patterns. Evolution says because the split populations are under new and different environmental conditions, each will have its own set of genetic changes and supernatural selections. That’s how new species can arise from the old single specie population. Speciation is an incredibly important edict of evolution. Speciation is evolution’s explanation for the tremendous diversity of species we observed today. According to evolution, if 542 million years ago there was 100 species of anything on this planet, there would be 100 species today if speciation didn’t occur. Speciation is an absolute necessity for evolution to be valid. If speciation does not occur, evolution is dead, which is why evolution scientists are continually trying to search for speciation in modern species. Can they find it? Usually their search involves observing changes in the nutrition and antibiotic and poison resistances of insects and bacterial colonies. In other words: no.
Each organ that exists in modern multicellular species must have been initiated invented and formed independently. Geographic separations and the distance separating species, the cause of speciation, make the spread from species to species of newly formed organs and bio-logical systems ever more impossible. So again, evolution commits hari kari. The very process that supposedly caused the flourishing of species also prevents the spread of organs and bio-logical systems. Species separated by long distances or large geologic entities should have evolved entirely different organs and bio-logical systems. But that just is not the case. Mammals in the southern hemisphere of the Earth have the same organ inventory and design as mammals in the northern hemisphere. A liver evolved independently in the southern hemisphere would have had to be matched by a liver evolved identically in the northern hemisphere, which isn’t a rational possibility. So, why are there the same organs and bio-logical systems throughout our home planet?
Of course the evolution of organs together as an entire system would have taken immense intelligence and planning. That is not a possibility under the tenets of evolution. Each organ, once evolved, had to become intertwined with the other organs in the system so they could survive and function together as a team. In the case of the heart/lung/vessel/blood/nerve/controller system, the lung took in oxygen. It then saturated a blood system with the oxygen. The blood was then pumped to the heart via blood vessels, and by the heart to the tissues needing that oxygen; also by more blood vessels. Of course included in those tissues that needed blood and oxygen were the heart and lung themselves. These incredibly intertwined organs represent a total team effort that was somehow invented and assembled by non-occurring good mutations and supernatural selection; one tiny step at a time. Of course these organ system “team members” make evolution not a possible choice for being the progenitor of all of nature. Without intelligence, evolution could not have planned the formation of a heart system without planning for the formation of a lung system. Both are needed for each to function. They are codependent. All of the other parts to this system are also codependent. The nerves that run the heart are kept alive by oxygen in the blood brought to the nerves by blood vessels. Non-occurring good mutations and supernatural selection and the complete lack of intelligence of evolution cannot account for a heart system evolving along with a lung system and all of their attendant parts. This system is nothing but a venture into the realm of impossibility for evolution.
So, there were two major events taking place at the same time in multicellular organisms:
(1) Populations of organisms splitting and genetically changing over time resulting in speciation, the formation of new species along with the old, and the making of a phylogenetic tree or a “tree of life.”
(2) The invention, initiation, design, assembly, and sustenance of organs and bio-logical systems. These systems also came into existence by those same selected genetic changes that caused the origination and production of new species in (1).
My goal in this chapter is to show that these two processes cannot coexist. If I am correct, either the tree of life, the phylogenetic tree is bogus, or the evolution of bio-logical systems is bogus. Or, more realistically, both are bogus. Because, if one is bogus, the other must be as well. To give you a simplified version of what I will be talking about, here is another mind experiment. Imagine eons ago that you and your spouse are the proud parents of three wonderful children. Both of you as parents have eyes, livers, an alimentary tract, heart, lungs….the full complement of vertebrate organs. But neither of you have a pair of kidneys. Kidneys simply don’t exist in your DNA code. Kidneys have not evolved as of yet, and up until now, the liver has done the job of the kidneys. Your three offspring are missing kidneys as well. In fact there is no notion of what kidneys are. Your children grow up and mate with other kidney-less humans and have their own children. Generation after generation passes until there are tens of thousands of your descendant humans, all with no kidneys. Here is the catch: all modern human descendants of yours have kidneys. My question then is how did kidneys evolve into those tens of thousands of offspring, since all modern humans descendants have kidneys. In fact all vertebrates have kidneys. If only your great great great grandchild and his or her descendants evolved a set of kidneys and no other great great great grandchild and his or her descendants did, how would kidneys wind up in every single modern descendant of yours? Your great great great grandchild would have no method for getting its pair of kidneys to all of your other descendants who live at the same time as they did or their descendants. An immense number of your descendants would have had to evolve their own identical set of kidneys. Or 99% of all modern humans descendants of yours would be kidney-less. Hopefully now you see the problem. (7)
I’ve already shown that the Cambrian Explosion destroys the phylogenetic tree. The evolution of organs and bio-logical systems destroys the tree as well. Organs and bio-logical systems that were in the process of evolving would have gone through hundreds of thousands of steps, any of which may not have been complete enough for the organism to utilize that particular organ or bio-logical system for its “final” modern use. (I realize that according to evolution, there is no “final” use, but if an organ or bio-logical system has remained pretty static for hundreds of millions of years, I will say “final use.”) According to evolution if, for example, a lung was in the process of evolving, and the partial lung was not complete enough to use for the intake of oxygen, according to evolution, that partial lung would have had to have some use other than oxygen intake. It might have been some sort of filter, or possibly a joint cushion; which seems absurd, but evo-illusionists are intent on preaching that partially completed organs and bio-logical systems did have varying utility all along the path of their evolutionary formation, or they would not have survived. Just imagine the uselessness of a heart/lung/blood/vessel/nerve/controller system whose heart was partially evolved and not yet useful as a blood pump. And what if other parts of this bio-logical system were partially evolved and not useful for their final function? The mess of partially evolved organs and bio-logical systems would be unimaginable if evolution truly was their source.
So, these are the two major tenets of evolution, and the basis for this entire science: selected genetic changes in organisms that brought about: (1) speciation and phylogenetic tree, the tree of life, which resulted in the billion or so species that have inhabited the Earth, and (2) the gradual genetic changes that were utilitarian to a species and caused the invention, design, assembly, and sustenance of all organs and bio-logical system. I am going to show that these two foundations destroy each other; that they are mutually exclusive. They cannot exist together.
If common ancestry was truly the modus operandi for forming all of nature’s species, it would kill the ability of evolution to invent and spread organs and bio-logical systems that are common and extant in any species group today. The biggest problem for evolution and their scenario for the formation of all of nature and all bio-logical systems is that species could not have spread their newly evolved organs and bio-logical systems to other species. If a single species evolved a particular bio-logical system, say a heart/lung/blood/vessel/nerve/controller system, there is no way for that species to spread that bio-logical system to other species that were living at the same time, due of course to the fact that species cannot procreate with other species. The only species that could attain the newly formed heart/lung system would have been the descendants of the common ancestor that originally evolved the organ or bio-logical system; just as your kidney-less descendants in the mind experiment could not attain kidneys.
Evolutionauts like to isolate and discuss the different parts of each bio-logical system one at a time. They like to take a visual system for example, and discuss how a species evolved the eyeball, as if that’s the only part that needs explanation. “First a cup formed, then it pinched in and formed a pinhole camera, then…..” They completely avoid the fact that the optic nerve needs inventing, building, and “hook up”. The visual cortex, the code that carries images, and the blood system that keeps the whole system alive and functioning need inventing and assembly as well. Oh, also the lung that oxygenates the blood that keeps the eyeball and optic nerve and visual cortex alive, and, the heart that sends the blood to the whole system, and………… They think each part, once it was evolved individually, is then sent along to its descendants over eons, so that all descendants of the originator species had that particular organ system. But this scenario is wracked with problems. If a particular species evolved vision over hundreds of thousands of years, it would mean that only the descendants of that one species would have vision. If that were the case, today we would have an immense number of blind animal species, as all other common ancestor species didn’t have vision to pass along. The only answer to that problem is that many common ancestors that existed around the same time as the originator species had to also evolve almost identical visual systems. Is it plausible that a huge number of blind species evolved nearly identical visual systems all at about the same time period? All with two eyeballs, two optic nerves, a visual cortex in the brain, and a complex code to carry images, and of course all of the other parts common to most visual systems: lenses, corneas, retinas, irises, vitreous humors, oculomotor systems, and on and on? Answer: no.
Each bio-logical system is made up of many different entities. Imagine a species in the process of forming bio-logical systems such as a eye/optic nerve/visual cortex/code/oculomotor system, or heart/lung/blood/vessel/nerve/controller system. For simplicity, the diagram at left uses three systems labeled A, B, and C. It really matters not which systems we example, as the problems are pertinent to all systems. At the time of major evolution of bio-logical systems, there would naturally be several organs and bio-logical systems in the process of inventing and assembling themselves. There would never be just one bio-logical system forming completely independently and isolated from all other bio-logical systems unless some sort of direction was involved. Nature in the form of non-occurring good mutations and supernatural selection cannot perform such a perfect series of isolated tasks. Plus, each part of any system is co-dependent on other parts. Does an eye need oxygenated blood to survive? I am sure that all evolutionauts will agree that speciation events and the full evolution of any system could not have been timed so that an organ or part of a system begins and completes its formation, cleanly and purposefully followed by a speciation event as shown in the diagram above. Speciation events could not possibly be timed exactly with the beginning and completion of the formation of multiple organ systems. The scenario in the diagram could not have happened. That’s pretty unarguable.
The other scenario that I’m sure everyone can agree on is that two species in the process of evolving similar systems, or anything or nothing for that matter, could not coalesce and form one species. The evolving organs in those two species could not coalesce into single organs or systems either. The diagram at left, shows a scenario that could not be in the mix; it couldn’t happen. Different species cannot procreate with each other. There is no mechanism in nature that would allow two different species populations to coalesce into one, with each filling in or adding to the missing organs and bio-logical systems of the other.
In taking a look at reality, if everything occurs as evolution states, the evolution of organs and bio-logical systems had to take place during speciation events, since speciation is an ongoing process. According to evolution, speciation events are occurring right now. The formation of most organs and bio-logical systems seems to have occurred around and after 542 million years ago when a majority of modern body types appeared in the fossil record. The diagram below left shows the splitting of a species population. The result according to evolution would be a speciation event with the result being the formation of at least one new species that split off from the older species. The population that split was in the throes of forming organs/bio-logical systems A and B. A was 10% completed, B was 65%. Once split, there would now be two populations with two partially completed systems. Each new population lives under different conditions, predation, and environmental stresses. Also, different mutations will occur in each population. Is it now rational to expect that A and B will continue evolving in each population identically and complete the formation of these organs and bio-logical systems in identical fashion, yielding the same final designs? Of course not. The result of that speciation should be obvious today. There should be some very strange looking modern organs and bio-logical systems as a result of a speciation event that took place in the midst of organ and bio-logical system formation. There should be organs and bio-logical systems that look partially of one type, and partially of another. Unfortunately for evolution partially evolved systems don’t exist. Livers look like livers. There are no livers with several different types of tissues as part of the main makeup of the liver body. Livers are all liver. Kidneys are all kidney. No interruptions show up in modern species that would demonstrate speciation events during the formation of organs and other tissues. Interruption layers in organs should be starkly present as an indicator of past evolution just like the rings in trees are indicators of their past history, and the layers of shale show when different species first appeared and how long they existed.
I was given this diagram at left by an evolutionaut at a rather well known evolution discussion internet site. The evolutionaut said this diagram explains how my challenges above are easily answered. According to him, the problem is so simple to solve. Species get more complex as we go through time, from left to right on the diagram. This is just another perfect example of an evolutionaut who gives answers without the slightest bit of thought as to whether those answers really do satisfy the question. Of course his answer doesn’t come close. Species just get “more complex”, without the slightest thought as to how all of nature’s organs and bio-logical systems formed and spread from species to species. Responding to this diagram, of course, wasn’t worth a minute of my time.
The toughest challenge for evolution beside the problem of spreading newly formed organs and systems to other species nearby is the geographic conundrum.How did organs and bio-logical systems that evolved in one location of the Earth migrate those organs and bio-logical systems to other locations so that they could appear in all modern species that have them? In the picture below left, what if a species in location (1) evolved a liver/hepatic system. How would that system make it to the species in location (2)? The evolutionauts that I have asked this question to have answered that currents and movement of land masses moved the organs around, without the least bit of thought as to how that could happen. The notion that every organ was evolved in a species, then that species was perfectly migrated around the Earth by currents and land movement so those organs will become planted in all species that didn’t possess that organ doesn’t qualify as absurd. Can you imagine the unbelievably complex perfect web of land mass movements and currents that would have had to take place so the multitude of organs and bio-logical systems in the multitude of species that originated them could migrate those systems perfectly to all species in every group all over the world? As one land mass migrates toward another, the “target” land mass would also be on the move. It would move away from the first. Land mass movement doesn’t bring two land masses together like the two pieces of bread on a giant cheese sandwich.
Even if land masses could bring different species together, how then did the organ or bio-logical system unique to one species actually become a part of another species that didn’t possess the organ or bio-logical system? In other words, once a species that had evolved organ C drifted from point 1 to point 2 in the figure, how would that organ then become a part of any new species at point 2, since there cannot be an exchange of genetic material between two different species. Another question arises. If evolution is the answer, wouldn’t there be at least some groups of animals that didn’t migrate? Shouldn’t there be pockets of species with their own very very different types of organs and bio-logical systems, since so many species evolved geographically far and independently from other species? The answer I get for this question from evolutionauts is the one answer that works for all questions, in their minds anyway: “Common Ancestry is the answer. Period. And if you don’t accept that answer, just shut up.” Evolutionauts will go with the most horrible excuses so their “science” can remain pure and defended.
The bottom line of this whole discussion is that a single common ancestor to a modern group, such as mammals, had to contain all of the organs and bio-logical systems extant and common to that modern group. Otherwise there is no plausible way a complete inventory of organs and bio-logical systems are common and extant to all modern mammal species, no matter where they are in the world. For evolution’s explanations to be valid there should be incomplete mixes, different designs, and different inventories of organs and bio-logical systems in groups of modern mammals. There isn’t. Also, speciation, which supposedly produced common ancestry, the hallmark answer given by evolutionauts to the challenges posed here, would have interrupted the evolution of organs and bio-logical systems as described above. This splitting of species should have produced an incredible mish mash of organs and bio-logical system in modern animals which just isn’t the case. Also, the common ancestry produced by speciation, and the inability of species to procreate with each other, makes the spread of newly evolved organs and bio-logical systems to other than the organisms within the species, not possible. Which means, if evolution is valid, huge numbers of different species would have had to evolve nearly identical organ systems; an impossible scenario. Can non-intelligent selected randomness take multiple identical pathways? Evolution, feeling stuck with this problem, has named it convergent or parallel evolution, terms for different species vastly separated by time and distance evolving nearly identical entities. Just like labeling a lack of evolution “punctuated equilibrium”, evo-illusionists think labeling this immense problem can solve it for them. Again the label itself becomes the answer. When I bring up the above problem to evolutionauts, they frequently answer, “Oh, haven’t you heard of convergent evolution? Get a book!” Problems don’t go away because someone concocts a label or term for the problem.
Interestingly, in my discussion with evolutionauts on this subject, they often get frustrated and try to substitute traits and characteristics for organs and bio-logical systems. Traits are things like hair color, eye color, height, and weight. Traits are not bio-logical systems or organs, and cannot and should not be discussed as such.