Page 53 - The Transitional Form Dilemma

HARUN YAHYA

Evolutionist justification that small and
Evolutionist justification that small and
soft-bodied creatures left no fossils be
soft-bodied creaatures left no fossils be- -
hind them—
hind them—
Another excuse evolutionists employ with regard to the Cambrian
explosion—that small and soft-bodied creatures left no fossils behind
them—is similarly invalid. According to this reasoning, the ancestors
of animal phyla are not found in the Precambrian because they were
very tiny and had no hard structures, and so left no fossils behind
them. Yet this is not actually the case: There are numerous fossils of
soft-bodied organisms. Nearly all of the fossils in the Ediacara Hills in
Australia, for example, consist of soft-bodied creatures. In his 1998
book The Crucible of Creation, Simon Conway Morris writes that “First,
in the Ediacaran organisms there is no evidence for any skeletal hard
parts . . . Ediacaran fossils look as if they were effectively soft-bod-
ied.” 19 The same applies to some fossils from the Cambrian Period. For

instance, there are a number of fossils of soft-bodied living things in
Burgess Shale. According to Conway Morris, “these remarkable fossils

An arthropod (left) and a
slug-like creature (right)
found in the Burgess Shale

51