Fossils of an "early Cambrian" arthropod with "exceptionally well-preserved eyes" and "modern optical elements" should have opened the eyes of evolutionists - but instead they resort to "unwinding" such finds.
“Modern optical elements” in an “Early Cambrian” arthropod fossil found in shale rocks in southern Australia confirm the biblical story of a Creator (Genesis 1, Romans 1:20). The fact that the eyes of the fossil are “exceptionally well preserved” is consistent with the rapid burial theory that would have been expected from the catastrophic Flood that occurred in the days of Noah (Genesis 6-9). However, attempts by evolutionists to "spin" these fossils, exposing them as evidence of evolution, are shamelessly deceiving and at the same time admirable for their ingenuity.
With these words, the editor of Nature began his review of a study on "modern optical elements" and the "complex vision system" in an arthropod that is allegedly 500 million years old:
How clever is to turn the problem of the evolutionary origin of the eye, the problem of the "sudden appearance" of complex, fully functional eyes in the "fossil record," and the problem of evolutionary stagnation (a phenomenon in which nothing changes) over supposed millions of years into imaginary proof of the point of view, according to which complex life forms could easily and rather quickly arise on their own. In other words, this evolutionary "promotion" may sound like this:
A second article, written largely by the same group of scientists and also published in Nature, focused on another arthropod fossil recovered from the same shale deposit. The main issues in it were again the complexity of the structure (as we have already reported) and "exceptional preservation." and "exceptional preservation". The arthropod fossil called Anomalocaris turned out to be an extinct giant creature resembling a shrimp. It was noted that this fossil has "at least 16,000 hexagonally packed lenses (in each eye), and in this it can rival the most complex eye structure of modern arthropods."
And here - again - the complexity of the structure and the state of stagnation: fully functional eyes of arthropods have always been like this. In addition, evolutionary researchers have noticed two other "surprises." First, evolutionists have always assumed that complex eyes evolved along with exoskeletons; however, Anomalocaris was soft-bodied, leading researchers to conclude that the eyes did evolve earlier. (However, other evolutionists warn that this statement "may still spark debate"). Secondly, this discovery "attributes the origin of the compound eye to even earlier periods of the arthropod lineage."
Promotional video:
The researchers have passed over in silence the evolutionary challenges they face with these findings. Instead, we see another example of the quirky, but at the same time short-sighted "hype" that was applied to this find. Noting that, most likely, it was a "higher order predator", the researchers suggested that Anomalocaris not only poses no problem for the theory of evolution, but turns out to be a vital example of it. This predator, a member of the "early Cambrian ecosystem" with incredibly sharp eyesight, must have "helped accelerate the" arms race "that began about half a billion years ago." They call this supposed period "an important phase in early animal evolution."
Oh yeah, this often-cited "arms race" is very important to the evolutionary tale scenario. "Once upon a time," this world where "a dog ate a dog" witnessed how the inhabitants of the sea evolved into inhabitants of land and inhabitants of the sky, and as the predators became stronger and smarter, their prey became ever faster and more elusive. But now no one sees such transformations - after all, such changes, in the course of which cells turn into mobile phone sellers, take millions of years.
Please note that this reasoning does not go beyond the logical circle, because, in fact, they say: “evolution is true, so this must be evidenced by the fossils, which happens (even when the storyline of evolution has to be drastically changed in order to adapt), therefore, evolution is true."
Beware of promotions. Perhaps they will pass for fiction, but a concocted fairy tale, no matter how beautifully told, is not history. History is the biblical account of creation.
David Catchpool
