Quoting from the very first part of the article:
When addressing the Cambrian explosion, evolutionists retreat to tried-and-true excuses. Darwin, we know, needed gradually changing transitions but the fossil record showed near-instantaneous new forms. Darwin’s dilemma remains to this day.
I guess they are unaware that Darwin solved this dilemma 150 years ago:
The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
-Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”
Their position is simply unsupportable. They claim they can look at a fossil, and from just that information they can determine if that species had an ancestor or not. On top of that, they actually think that after looking at a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the fossil record, we have found every single species that has ever lived, even when new fossil species are being found on a monthly basis. The chutzpah is breathtaking.
1 Like