In this program about Cnidaria, the phylum to which jellyfish, coral and the sea anemone belong, after the statement that the nervous and muscular system on which the movements of present day animals is based first emerged in Cnidaria, the following evolutionist claims are made:
Millions of years ago Cnidaria brought about a revolution and brought movement to animals. We use nerve cells and muscle cells and all these originated in Cnidaria. This valuable system discovered by Cnidaria was handed down to animals as a legacy… It was an unbelievable step. In order to move and to react, animals developed it in unbelievable ways. The ancestors of all these were Cnidaria. We owe a great debt of gratitude to this primary and simple group…
The characterization of Cnidaria”s nervous system as fundamental springs solely from PBS”s prejudices. Because they claim that in the natural world evolution from simple to complex is experienced, evolutionists tend to compare older species and those living in the present day and define more simply organized systems as “fundamental”. Their claim that Cnidaria have a movement system which is the predecessor of those of present day animals arises from this. The truth is that this claim about Cnidaria is groundless.
First of all, there is no mechanism in nature which directly develops living things from simple to complex. If we are to make a comparison, complex forms are like technologically superior tools. Just as technologically superior tools require more engineering knowledge than their predecessors, complex life forms require more genetic information in their DNA than simple ones. For example, an elephant”s trunk has hundreds of thousands of muscles and a specialized nerve network which supports these in order for it to be able to move correctly. The evolutionists have no satisfactory explanation of how the genetic information on which this system in the elephant is based developed from the DNA of creatures like Cnidaria. Observations show that random mutations always cancel information and that their effects are in time harmful to living creatures. To suggest that the movement system of creatures like Cnidaria can become the complex movement systems of an elephant through random mutations is like suggesting that a calculator repeatedly dropped from height can in time turn into a computer. In short, complex movement systems have not emerged by evolving from Cnidaria.
Another very simple proof of the invalidity of the claim that Cnidaria are the ancestors of other animals comes from paleontology. This is the Cambrian Explosion. All known animal phyla such as Cnidaria, arthropoda (joint-limbed), worms, chordates, crustaceans etc. emerged suddenly and with no ancestors at all during the geological period referred to (540 to 530 million years ago).
Two 530-million-year-old fish fossils found in China in 1999 tightened the bottleneck the Cambrian Explosion has created for the theory of evolution still further. While until a short time earlier it was known that almost all phyla emerged in the Cambrian period, there was no vertebrate definitely known to have lived during this period. However, the two 530-million-year-old fish fossils found in China which had a sufficiently detailed appearance to provide plenty of information about the living creatures that they belonged to showed that this acceptance was imaginary. (“Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,” Nature 402, pp. 42 – 46, 4 November 1999). The finding of these fish in the Lower Cambrian rocks showed that they emerged at the same time as a number of Cnidaria or even earlier than some of them.
Fine, so how could a vertebrate life system said to have evolved from the movement system in the Cnidaria have emerged during the same period as most of them? Of course such a thing is impossible. Thus it emerges that the claim that an ancestor-descendant relationship exists between Cnidaria and living creatures of the present day is based solely on prejudice.
As can be seen, the claims put forward on PBS are deceptions defended and believed in blindly despite scientific evidence. While discoveries about natural history rebut Darwinism, this truth has been overlooked and in the documentary evolutionist fables of no scientific value are put forward. At this point there emerges the responsibility which falls to the managers of PBS. The esteemed managers should realize that Darwinism is a theory people are trying to keep alive not with scientific evidence but solely for ideological purposes and they should avoid screening Darwinist programs without subjecting them to scientific examination.