Page 95 - The Cambrian Evidence that Darwin Failed to Comprehend

HARUN YAHYA

[Against the fossils found in Chengjiang,] the scientists come out and
say, “Oh yes, we’ve heard this before, and it’s very similar to the
Burgess Shale,” and so forth. But the Burgess Shale story was not told
for many years. The Burgess Shale was first found by Charles Walcott
in 1909. Why was the story not reported to the public until the late
1980s?At the very beginning, I thought it was a problem for them;
they couldn’t figure out what was going on because they found some-
thing that bears no resemblance to the present animal groups and
phyla. Walcott originally tried to shoehorn those groups into existing
ones, but [his attempt] was never satisfactory. It was puzzling for a
while because they refused to see that in the beginning there could be
more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla
that do not exist now. That’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38
we have now. (Actually, the number 50 was first quoted as over 100
for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) But the point is,
they saw something they didn’t know what to do with; that’s the sci-

The new Cambrian fossils discovered in China’s Chengjiang region confirmed
the Burgess Shale fossils that had been ignored for the past 70 years. With these
new fossils, the number of Cambrian phyla rose still further, and it was realized
that these organisms had existed all across the globe.

93