A documentary concerning the phylum Annelidae stressed that in general the worms which emerged during the Cambrian period possessed the same body plans as a great many living things in the world today. However, it was also claimed, on the basis of evolution, that worms are the evolutionary ancestors of many creatures. Nothing positive emerged in the portrayal of evidence of these claims, however.
The subject was glossed over with a rather superficial comparison. An attempt was made to construct a similarity between the structure of a worm which had left traces in a fossil and the skeleton of the elephant. Making use of computer simulations, the curvature of the body axis of the worm was placed over that of the elephant”s backbone, and it was maintained that a great many organs absent from the worm, such as the trunk, legs, joints etc. were built on this so-called evolutionary plan. A living thing like a worm, just 3-5 cm long, and an elephant weighing tons, with a totally different structure to the worm, were portrayed as members of an alleged evolutionary chain, “because the horizontal axes of their bodies displayed the same curvature.”
This claim, the fruit of lofty imagination, reveals once again the great obstacle that Darwinism pose to reason and science. Blindly believing in this imaginary transition, which has been clearly demonstrated to be scientifically impossible, and what is more to attempt to have everyone else believe in it, is an attitude that is truly hard to fathom. Attempts to build support for evolution with imaginary computer simulations once again highlights the crisis of proof facing evolutionists.
In fact, both the worms discussed in the program and the phylum Chordata, of which elephants are a part, emerged in the same geological period, in other words in the Cambrian. To attempt to portray these phyla, which emerged at the same time and with no common ancestor as evolutionary relatives means putting evidence that works against evolution forward as proof of that same evolution. It is fallacious, in other words. Erroneous interpretations of this kind are not only an indication of how program producers have conditioned themselves to disseminate Darwinism, but also require us to warn PBS Channel, to review its policy on documentaries.
As has been made clear above, it is a serious mistake for the “Shape of Life” documentaries, prepared as a popular propaganda vehicle with the aim of disseminating Darwinism rather than broadcasting any scientific truth, to be shown on PBS Channel. Careful examination reveals that this documentary series screened by the official radio and television corporation is a repeat of episodes previously broadcast a few months ago. We at that time drew attention in our articles to the scientific errors contained in these programs and to the likely destructive effects of their Darwinist propaganda. We once again take the opportunity offered by these documentaries to appeal to the PBS Channel management to subject their programs to a serious scientific examination.