This article from Science Daily provides some great insight into evolutionary theory and its weaknesses. If we actually analyze the claims of evolutionists, we can see enough to debunk them. And this article provides a number of important takeaways.
First, it’s important to note how elastic evolutionary theory is. Evolution is often referred to with certainty as a fact, and when evolutionists draw a conclusion, it’s considered settled science. But what happens when that “settled science” is debunked? Well, the new conclusion becomes settled science.
Can you spot the flaw in this kind of reasoning? It doesn’t require any real proof, just circumstantial evidence that cannot be confirmed or denied by the scientific method. Evolutionists can assume that which they wish to prove, and no one questions it.
In reality, science is never settled. It’s always being questioned. That’s what good scientists do. And that is why the scientists in this article “could rewrite the evolutionary history of invertebrate origins”.
In essence, evolutionary history can be rewritten at any time, so it’s a mistake to think that the latest version represents reality. It’s only temporary… until someone else comes up with what is thought to be a better answer. But we can never truly know if the latest answer is better or not. It’s simply assumed.
To be fair, the scientists doing the research explain that the reason why the science was off by 30 million years is because the evidence wasn’t there until now. But that’s the rub. I would argue that ALL of evolutionary history is fraught with this same problem. There’s such a lack of evidence that it’s impossible to draw the right conclusions.
But here’s the second point. Evolution is assumed, and this article openly admits it. The author states that, if their conclusions are correct, then the previous evolutionary assumptions were wrong. And the reason why this is important is because evolutionists will often deny that their beliefs are based on assumptions, but on facts. If they admit their conclusions are really built upon unprovable assumptions about the past, then people might doubt evolution, and they want to avoid that possibility.
The discovery itself is fascinating. Scientists found what are considered to be the oldest known cephalopod fossils, thought to be 30 million years older than scientists once believed, dating them to the early Cambrian period.
This is notable because it’s during the Cambrian Explosion- a time when many diverse, multicellular organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record, with unique, fully developed body plans, and no evidence of evolution.
This brings me to my third point. Dr. Anne Hildenbrand, a researcher from the Institute of Earth Sciences clearly states, “That would mean that cephalopods emerged at the very beginning of the evolution of multicellular organisms during the Cambrian explosion.”
Of course that is a conundrum for evolutionists because it means cephalopods would have had to have evolved from a single-celled organism into “highly evolved” invertebrates rapidly, with no fossil evidence to substantiate it.
The article’s reference to cephalopods being “highly evolved” is notable because it means they have specialized body parts well-designed for their environment, including limbs and eyes.
All this should lead one call evolutionary theory into question. Scientists don’t know which version is the correct version, and even when they settle on one, that doesn’t mean they’re right- or any closer to being right. They will simply assume that which they wish to believe, despite acknowledging how highly complex cephalopods are.
I would also contrast evolutionary theory with creation theory, the latter inferring that God created cephalopods on Day Five of creation, along with all the living creatures of the sea in the very recent past. He created them suddenly, fully developed, fully formed, designed for aquatic life.
There’s no legitimate reason to resort to evolutionary assumptions about the past when the Bible provides a consistent explanation for the origin of life that doesn’t keep changing with new discoveries.