Here’s an article from Live Science that provides a fascinating look into the past. Scientists found a fossilized larva, and they claim it’s 500 million-years-old. If that’s not amazing enough, they were able to create 3D images of the larva’s brain and circulatory system, and they claim all this tells them how other animals evolved.

While the larva fossil certainly is an amazing discovery, it’s not as sensational as claimed, and I’d suggest it doesn’t tell us anything about evolution.

First, I’d argue that the fossil isn’t 500 million-years-old. Dating methods cannot confirm the true age of an organism or object. Thus, the age must be assumed based on the results of the dating method used.

Aside from that, the fossilized larva is so well preserved that the organism’s biological components can be studied in three-dimensional detail. The author of the article writes, “Researchers have discovered how the brain of the largest animal group evolved after finding the remains of a microscopic, worm-like creature that lived half a billion years ago.” This is a lofty claim that can’t be substantiated. It’s ripe with evolutionary assumptions and circular reasoning. They’re not questioning evolution. It’s accepted as fact. Therefore, if one needs to fit this discovery into an evolutionary paradigm, then all one needs to do is make a proclamation without backing it up with conclusive, incontrovertible evidence. And they do.

If they truly want to explain how the brains of arthropods evolved, then provide the chemical pathway. How did proteins become rearranged to do this? How did the organism’s genome rewrite itself? Show me that it actually happened. It’s one thing to say it happened, but another to demonstrate it.

What we have is a fully formed brain and circulatory system with no evidence of evolution. The structures are beautifully preserved. But there is no step-by-step progression of an evolving brain or circulatory system from one related organism into another. There’s no evidence of trial and error or experimentation. We’re simply told that this larva is related to other organisms that may not be related at all, and readers are expected to accept this claim without question.

But here are some points to consider: Researchers admit that the head, brain and circulatory system of this arthropod are “sophisticated.” Other components include the epidermis, gut, digestive glands, membranes, internal tissues and sinuses. Why is all this significant? Because these body parts are fully functional and optimized for their environment. They’re already sophisticated. And the problem with evolving one complex brain into another requires an enormous amount of new information within the genome, and there’s no evidence to suggest that this is even possible.

Interestingly, the researchers issue caution, explaining that the absence of certain features may reflect this organism’s stage of development rather than any evolutionary relationship. In addition, they consider their interpretations to be plausible, but plausibility isn’t evidence. Another problem is “the absence of any obvious precursor to dorsal flags.” The researchers solve this by suggesting that “flaps may have evolved multiple times in derived groups”.

Ah, yes, convergent evolution, where similarities arise separately among different groups of organisms. This is one of an evolutionist’s favorite rescuing agents, and they invoke it to explain away the dilemma.

Researchers state, “Features shared with onychophorans are presumably inherited from their common ancestor with euarthropods.” See how evolution is assumed? And not demonstrated? If their presumption is incorrect, then all their hard work is for naught.

They also employ a fair amount of speculation: “The tardigrade brain may reflect an intermediate situation.” If they’re wrong, then there is no “intermediate” situation, and no evolution.

Lastly they state, “Together, these observations clarify the sequence of evolutionary events that established Euarthropoda as a diverse and dominant presence in Phanerozoic ecosystems.” Seriously?

So if one ignores all the evolutionary assumptions, speculation, circular reasoning, caution, rescuing agents, problems and presumptions, then evolution has been clarified. But if we do take all these issues into consideration, then evolution is muddy. And I would suggest that a better explanation is that God created all life, including this beautiful tiny larva called Youti yuanshi.