Cambrian Exploding With More Discoveries

One of the most fundamental things we learn regarding Darwinism is this...”Evolution is not free to make anything, it makes things that work by gradual steps…That is a finite set of options.” says a blogger in response to a previous post.  Nature doesn’t agree!

For example, a Cambrian arthropod that was recently discovered in China, had a complex brain! The imprint was so well-preserved that scientists were able to trace the neural pathways from the brain all the way to the eye stalks! This discovery defies evolutionary thinking  of “making things work by gradual steps (from simple to complex).

Evolutionists begin to ask, “why would nature create an advanced brain anatomy with a primitive body plan?” So you have this animal with a very simple body structure with a modern brain! Even though Stausfeld, a neurobiologist at the University of Arizona believes this fossil ‘evolved’ his explanation goes against evolutionary expectations…

“The fossil supports the idea that once a basic brain design had evolved, it changed little over time, he explained. Instead, peripheral components such as the eyes, the antennae and other appendages, sensory organs, etc., underwent great diversification and specialized in different tasks but all plugged into the same basic circuitry.”

“It is remarkable how constant the ground pattern of the nervous system has remained for probably more than 550 million years,” Strausfeld added. “The basic organization of the computational circuitry that deals, say, with smelling, appears to be the same as the one that deals with vision, or mechanical sensation.”

Not only is this fossil falsifying “gradual steps” but has evolutionists suggesting that evolution goes backwards! In the story of evolution, insects evolved from simpler-brained branchiopods.

Science daily

“Because the brain anatomy of branchiopods is much simpler than that of malacostracans, they have been regarded as the more likely ancestors of the arthropod lineage that would give rise to insects.

However, the discovery of a complex brain anatomy in an otherwise primitive organism such as Fuxianhuia makes this scenario unlikely. “The shape [of the fossilized brain] matches that of a comparable sized modern malacostracan,” the authors write in Nature. They argue the fossil supports the hypothesis that branchiopod brains evolved from a previously complex to a more simple architecture instead of the other way around.”

Stausfeld, a Londoner and two Chinese colleagues their paper in nature admitted to branchiopods under going “evolutionary reduction” in brain structure rather than a step by step increase that is normally expected! Why would such a reduction have to occur, wouldn’t have been better (or more fit) to have the brain remain complex and evolve it more from there?

Does this shed more understanding on how evolutionary expectations don’t work when observing nature, oops I mean work? One hears this a lot when evolution is falsified.

Graham E. Budd says this in nature

“Even to palaeontologists, the fossil record can resemble the chaotic attic of an eccentric relative, stacked with ancient bric-a-brac of dubious usefulness. But the record has recently been throwing up some surprises that are bringing new order to this jumble. Our concept of dinosaurs, for example, has evolved from what were essentially bolted-together lumps of bone into living creatures covered in graceful feathers — and in colour too. Other fossil finds have brought changes to the scale of our understanding of evolution.”

“For example, the discovery of exceptionally well-preserved fossil muscle fibres throughout the record and fossilized embryos from at least the Cambrian period, some 500 million years ago, have provided remarkable insight into the fine-scale evolution of these tissues and life stages. Now, on page 258 of this issue, Ma and colleagues describe preserved nervous tissue from the Cambrian — a find that grants palaeontologists access to the exclusive zoological club of those who study the brain and nervous system.”

When a “theory” increases in complexity as a result of falsifications which happens a lot in evolution, it doesn’t hold up in explaining the realities of nature! How these complex muscle fibers and embryos from the earliest parts of the record could provide such “insight” into evolution was left unexplained.

The Cambrian shows an abrupt appearance of all the animal body plans  along with complex brains but no transitional forms.  Transitional forms should out number the species themselves in the fossil record! From there, diversification and simplification occurs according to built-in variability and adaptation mechanisms, but the original complex designs endure! This is my friend what you call, evidence that confirms creationism!

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Cambrian Exploding With More Discoveries

  1. Stausfeld, a Londoner and two Chinese colleagues their paper in nature admitted to branchiopods under going “evolutionary reduction” in brain structure rather than a step by step increase that is normally expected! Why would such a reduction have to occur, wouldn’t have been better (or more fit) to have the brain remain complex and evolve it more from there?

    The first thing to understand is that Michael’s statement above is factually absolutely wrong. He has once more failed basic reading comprehension.

    This may proceed from Michael’s colossal ignorance of evolution and evolutionary processes, which by this time has reached the stage of willful disregard.

    Michael cannot understand that evolution must proceed from what is to what can be. He cannot understand the difference between evolution and design, where arbitrary structures and abilities can be poofed into existence at the whim of an omnipotent deity. Therefore, when he reads about a “complex” brain, he imagines something similar to a human brain.

    However, what the authors of the Nature paper have in mind by a “complex” brain is one that has structures similar to those of a house fly, not to a human. And just what is this “complexity”? The fossil Cambrian brain has several separate lobes for separate sensory organs, as opposed to a single lobe for all of them. But the structure is still hardly more than a simple ganglion of nerve cells.

    In his ignorance, Michael misunderstands the significance of this lobed brain pattern. It is not remarkable in itself—it’s not even a new discovery There are two groups of primitive Cambrian animals that could, according to previous evidence, have been the ancestors of today’s arthropods: (a) The branchiopods, which have the single-lobed brain, and (b) the malacostracans, which have multiple lobes. Previous opinion favored the branchiopods, because of their assumed simpler brains. However, this new Cambrian fossil has a body plan that puts it definitely in the ancestral path of arthropods, AND it has the structured brain of the malacostracans—making them more likely an ancestor than the branchiopods.

    While Michael sees this as evidence for creation, the Nature authors—and the Science Daily writers—see it as evidence that modern insects evolved from one group of primitive animals rather than from a different group.

    Poor Michael. He keeps trying to “falsify” evolution. Yet the papers he puts forth as evidence for his position show the opposite of what he intended.

  2. One of Michael’s many misconceptions about evolution is that it requires ever-increasing complexity. This is not true.

    Brains for example, are expensive items to have hanging around. The human brain, at 2% of our total weight, consumes more than 20% of the energy budget of the entire body. The extravagant resources for both constructing and operating a brain might be better utilized in better feeding apparatus. An animal might be better off with a bigger siphon than with a bigger brain.

    Consider the sea squirt. It is born with a brain—and with gills and swimming apparatus. But, when the squirt settles on a suitable surface for the rest of its life, it grows a siphon, and ditches the non-essential larval structures. INCLUDING ITS BRAIN.

    Michael, if a complex brain is desirable, why does the sea squirt eat its own brain?

  3. Michael once again faces the dilemma of all creationists.

    Creationists do no research of heir own. Therefore, in order to refute what scientists say, he must first believe what they say.

    In this specific case, Michael attempts to refute evolution by mocking the idea that complex brains could appear early in the Cambrian, and that brains could “evolve” by becoming simpler.

    In order to support this view, he must accept the scientists’ finding that the fossils did come from the Cambrian 520 million years ago. Yet Michael’s worldview does not admit that such a time existed. In order to claim that the brains had become simpler, he is forced to accept the scientists’ finding that the complex brains were in fact earlier. Yet Michael believes that all animals were created in a single 24-hour day, so that “earlier” and “later” have no meaning.

    .

    Michael is keeping up the pace. Once again, he has falsified evolution nine times in the past month. This s the same total as the last time this humble observer noted it. I seems representative. So, over the past year, evolution has been trampled into the dust a hundred times in this blog alone! Yet, in the same time period, about 2,500 peer-reviewed papers have been published on this theory that Michael has falsified so thoroughly. It seems that one side or the other is not playing with a full deck of cards. I know where my money lies..

  4. Ah, Themayan is back. Just in time for the first installment of Afarensis’ review of the new book, Science and Human Origins, in which two microbiologists and a lawyer show that all of human paleontology, all of anthropology,and most of atomic physics is wrong. They accomplish this worthy goal by showing that two chimp chromosomes did not fuse into a single human chromosome. Or maybe it did, but so what?. And by demonstrating that homo erectus was not a human ancestor. Or maybe it was. And that the DNA evidence is not persuasive, because the authors don’t understand the statistics of molecular evolution.

    Thereview is in the form of a chapter-by-chapter disassembly. The first installment took apart Chapter One on October 14.

    If you just can’t wait for all the installments, Paul McBride also did a lengthy review, several months ago.in Still Monkeys.

    ===============

    [1] Gauger, Axe, and Luskin, Science and Human Origins (Discovery Institute 2012). Apparently no one else would publish it under their own name.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s