Page 59 - The Cambrian Evidence that Darwin Failed to Comprehend
P. 59

HARUN YAHYA

           that these were actually multi-celled organisms with certain complex
           characteristics. Various Dickinsonia specimens were found, as well as
           Kimberella fossils, which resembled teardrops in shape and had scal-
           loped edges. The remains left behind by Kimberella showed that these
           creatures were capable of movement. In other words, they did not live
           and reproduce in one place, as did the single-celled creatures before
           them. They had organs and extensions that permitted them to walk. 30
           Ediacaran fossils found in Newfoundland had brush-like appendages
           rather resembling hairs, and these creatures consisted of various colo-
           nies. Each of these animals’ hair-like extensions was divided into at
           least three separate parts. The end parts extended forwards. Such mi-
           croscopic extensions could be seen in even the smallest of these crea-
                31
           tures. Therefore, Ediacaran life forms were not merely simple collec-
           tions of fluid-filled cells, as some scientists imagine.
                Evolutionists made enormous efforts in order to establish an evo-
           lutionary scenario for how these very different life forms all emerged in
           the same period; and set all these fossils out in different orders.
           However, those found in Namibia were incompatible with those dis-
           covered in Scotland, and those found in Russia failed to match those
           discovered in England. The efforts to link these fossils—which failed to
           constitute a coherent whole among themselves—with Cambrian life
           forms represented a severe disappointment for evolutionists. No fossil
           evidence linked Cambrian life forms to any organisms that had existed
           before them. The remains of these perfectly preserved pre-Cambrian
           fossils refuted the long history of gradual change predicted by Darwin’s
           theory. 32
                Simon Conway-Morris admitted this evident fact in these words:
                Nevertheless, it remains true that the overall differences between the
                faunas of Ediacaran and Cambrian age are much more striking than
                any similarities. These differences cannot be simply be explained by
                the dilution of an Ediacaran component by a crowd of Cambrian new-



                                    Adnan  Oktar


                                         57
   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64