The Conquerors episode of the documentary “The Shape of Life” dealt with the arthropods, suggesting that these creatures made the transition from sea to land and afterwards formed a separate category by developing wings and beginning to fly. Evolutionist scenarios, that have been disproved countless times by scientific research and discoveries, were repeated to the accompaniment of new images with no evidence being put forward to back them up. This article reveals the evolutionist propaganda that took place in this documentary and briefly set out the dilemma that the arthropods represent for evolution.
The Evolutionists” Cambrian Difficulties
The beginning of the film deals with living things which lived around 500 million years ago. This period, known as the Cambrian Age, was when organisms possessed of complex physical structures suddenly emerged. These are the “phyla,” the most fundamental category of living creatures. In a most interesting way nearly all the phyla that have lived on the earth emerged during the Cambrian period. Only a few phyla have been identified from before this period, although it has been estimated from the fossil record that the number of phyla appearing in the Cambrian was close to 100. The enormous jump in the variety of life at this time was so great that it is known as the “Cambrian Explosion” in the literature.
Richard Monastersky, editor of Earth Sciences magazine, a popular publication in evolutionist literature, provides the following information on the Cambrian Explosion:
A half-billion years ago the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of the earth”s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth”s first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today. (1)
No organism has ever been found that the evolutionists might possibly put forward as an “ancestor” of the living things which emerged in the Cambrian Explosion. The creatures of the Cambrian period emerged suddenly, and with flawless structures. This naturally demonstrates that creation was at the root of the Cambrian explosion. The British zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent defenders of Darwinism in the world, makes the following admission regarding the living things of the Cambrian:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups… It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. (2)
Another aspect of the explosion in the Cambrian period which totally undermines evolution is that the number of phyla existing today is rather fewer than the number emerging in the explosion. According to the claims of the theory of evolution, there should have been an increase over time in the number of categories of living things. Yet from the fossil record the situation is the exact opposite.
One of the world”s most prominent critics of Darwinism is Berkeley University”s Professor Philip Johnson, who openly states the contradiction with Darwinism revealed by this situation with the following words:
Darwinian theory predicts a “cone of increasing diversity,” as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. (3)
Not one word about this is mentioned in the documentary. There can be only one reason why a film which deals with how living things emerged on earth and then spread should ignore this huge explosion in the variety of living things and number of phyla. This explosion in the Cambrian Period definitively reveals that life came about not by chance but all of a sudden and in perfect form, in other words that it was created. The makers of the documentary deliberately avoided touching on the subject.
The Evolutionists” Major Deception Regarding the Antennae and the Eye
The dead-ends facing the theory of evolution are each and every one ignored in the documentary. When the film, which looks at natural history from an evolutionist perspective, speaks of the arthropods it resorts to totally fictitious Darwinist scenarios to account for the perfectly designed organs in these animals” bodies.
One of these organs is the arthropod antennae, which work together with a complex nervous system. For instance, the 15-30 cm. lobster antennae are organs which can perform special dredging motions in the water and are equipped with sensitive tiny hairs capable of trapping chemicals. The claim put forward to account for the origin of such a complex organ is very far from explaining this multi-faceted design: “Arthropods developed a series of antennae to help them in their lives.”
It is true that the arthropods” antennae make their lives easier. It is also true that there is a purpose behind their design. Yet it is impossible for an arthropod, lacking all powers of reason, to have adopted an aim for itself and to have designed and developed a pair of antennae for itself in the light of that. In the same way that we human beings do not “develop” eyes for ourselves but find them ready when we are born, so the arthropods did not develop their antennae but found them ready at their birth. That is because both eyes and antennae, and all other organs, were created. The PBS channel makes no mention of this fact, preferring instead the nonsensical claim that the animals developed their organs for themselves.
Another organ based on evolution in the documentary although no consistent evidence is given for its origin, is the eye. The eye contains light-sensitive cells that are found in no other organ of the body. The job of these cells is to transform light into electrical energy and to forward this to the brain. The eye also contains a lens system for focusing light.
The design of the trilobite eye, an arthropod from the Cambrian Period, gives Darwinism a particularly serious blow. The faceted eye design in these creatures is some 530 million years old, and just as perfect as visual systems from our own time. Some modern insects, such as bees and dragonflies possess exactly that same system. (4) The fact that a system which functions flawlessly in our own time also existed in exactly the same form 530 million years ago totally undermines the Darwinist hypothesis of evolution from the simple to the complex.
Moreover, the complex design in the eye also includes the feature of irreducibility. In order for the lens and the light-sensitive cells, as well as great many other organs, to do their jobs successfully they need to exist in precise form at the very same moment. According to evolution”s own logic the eye will not work if just one of these elements is missing, and will thus atrophy and disappear. In short, the claims of Darwinism are in contradiction with each other.
Yet is an evident truth that the design in the eye was consciously created. The program attempts to cover up the fact that the origin of the eye is one of the greatest dilemmas facing Darwinism, and basically glosses over the matter by saying the arthropods developed eyes with precise and complex structures to enable them to perceive images.
If somebody one day told you “Computers made themselves fast CPUs in order to function better,” you would think that claim was a very odd and nonsensical one. Computers cannot develop their own systems; only computer engineers can do that. The same thing applies to living things. Living things cannot provide themselves with brand new features. That is only possible by conscious design. The only reason why this conscious design is being ignored is the Darwinist theory and materialist philosophy to which those who ignore the concept of conscious design are so blindly devoted (as well as the atheism that underpins both).
The method employed to cover up such matters with regard to the eye and antennae emerges when it comes to extensions such as claws, with their own particular design. The documentary proposes that with a small evolutionary leap, legs can turn into claws capable of gripping. This is a really ridiculous claim. The designs in the leg and claw are encoded in the creature”s DNA. Different DNA sequences are needed for the leg and claw. Furthermore, both sequences are based on information. It is impossible for this alleged change to have come about by mutations, which evolutionists try to portray as the basis of evolution. Mutations cause damaging effects in an organism, or at best have no effect at all. It is not possible for a random mutation to add to DNA the necessary information for a leg and so regulate the system. Indeed, such a change has never been observed.
In fact the documentary is full of such evolutionist fairy tales from beginning to end. This statement is particularly striking from the point of view of revealing the deceptive style that dominates the film: “It can be seen that the arthropods possessed an unbelievable evolutionary and developmental ability.”
This, as we have made clear above, is the equivalent of saying that computers possess an unbelievable evolutionary ability. The sole truth underlying this nonsense is the prejudice of the makers of the film in the face of that fact that all living things were created.
The Evolutionists” Spider Web Deception
Another important deception in the documentary concerns the spider web. It is alleged that the web emerged later in evolution, together with baseless claims that spiders” desires to catch flying creatures may have been influential in the web”s origin.
It must first of all be made clear that, as has been explained above, living things” “desires” cannot possibly acquire them new organs or physical attributes. No matter how much you and your descendants “wish” to fly, no matter how much you make that desire a part of your inner being, you will still never grow wings. Living things” physical features are encoded in their genes, and no “desire” can affect those genes. The style adopted by the documentary as it ignores this fundamental truth is an odd, unscientific and fantastical one.
Moreover, someone who closely examines the spider”s web can clearly see that it is the work of “design, not of “evolution by chance.” The spider”s web is a substance that material scientists take as a model. Weight for weight, it is five times more resistant than steel. The production of steel bulletproof vests has been made possible by imitating the spider”s web. Furthermore, the spider”s web exists as a liquid inside the animal”s body, undergoing a reaction as soon as it meets the air and becoming stiff. Moreover, the spider is capable of consuming its web whenever it wishes and storing it for subsequent use.
The way spiders spin their webs also rests on the most intelligent techniques. They use trees or plants as props and build their webs around them. Spinning concentric links that move in towards the center, they build an invisible snare and also a secure nest for themselves.
The fact that the web possesses all these features and that the spider possesses the ideal features to make use of the web is a miracle, which Darwinism can never account for. It once again shows us that the origin of life is creation.
The Scenario of the Scorpion Moving from Water to Land
One of the utterly baseless evolutionist claims made in the documentary “The Conquerors” concerns the transition from water to land. The film is very far from explaining this transition by means of the theory of evolution. The only example given in this area concerns an organ that the scorpion”s imaginary ancestors are assumed to have possessed, called the “wing,” which allowed them to breathe under water. It is suggested that over time this organ became buried inside the body and gained the ability to take in oxygen from the air. However, not one fossil was shown to back this claim up, and the account is stranded on the level of fantasy.
The explosion in the Cambrian Period shows that no such process as evolution was ever experienced in natural history. It can be seen that such complex structures as the eye and the antennae possess such an astonishing design that this can never be accounted for by random mutations. The spider”s web indicates that even tiny animals possess a superior design that engineers will seek to emulate, and demonstrates that the design in nature is so superior that it could never have come about by chance.
In short, Darwinist propaganda does not reflect the scientific facts. The scientific truth is that the arthropods and all the millions of other living species are the product of a conscious design.
1- Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient,” Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
2- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 229.
3- Philip E. Johnson, “Darwin”s Rules of Reasoning,” Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, Foundation For Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12.
4- R.L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 31.