Page 159 - The Cambrian Evidence that Darwin Failed to Comprehend

HARUN YAHYA

directed at the Creationists . . . He has several pages on the trilobite
there, but he never mentions this eye which is really the hardest part
of the problem. I think he does it because he simply can’t see the sig-
nificance of all these things when he is utterly convinced that there
must have been a slow build-up, but we just don’t have any fossils for
it. 120

Ignoring the subject altogether was evolutionists’ first choice.
The astonishing thing was that Eldredge, who sought to ignore the
trilobite eye that refuted evolution, had analyzed in the 1960s the
Devonian fossils of Phacops rana, a species of trilobite which he had
collected all over America. His analyses established that no slow
and gradual development among trilobites had ever taken place,
and that trilobites in the fossil record exhibited stasis. 121
Another paleontologist who drew similar conclusions was R.
A. Robison. In his study of fossil trilobites of the order Agnostida that
had lived in Midwest America during the Cambrian, Robison found
“a conspicuous lack of intergradation in species-specific charac-
ters.” 122 In short, the fossil record exhibited stasis. The countless tri-
lobite fossils revealed a fact too obvious to be ignored.
At this, evolutionists resorted to various suppositions.
Different circles engaged in a number of initiatives to explain the
cause of this complex arthropod that lived 530 million years ago and
how it came to acquire these features. Each one came up with a dif-
ferent theory, details of which we shall review in due course. For
some reason, no one explanation supported any of the others, and
these evolutionists could arrive at no consensus.
The evolutionist Richard Fortey described the disagreement
among evolutionists:

How then to account for their sudden appearance? Charles Darwin
was unusually confident in the Origin of Species: “I cannot doubt that
all the {Cambrian} trilobites have descended from some one crusta-

Adnan Oktar

157