AiG on the Cambrian Explosion

Cambrian Explosion or Creation Week ... Link

By Elizabeth Mitchell

The Cambrian explosion is a real problem to evolutionary theory, but the article exaggerates it. Why does the article only mention sponges as examples of pre-Cambrian animals, and not Jellyfish, Kimberella(probably an early mollusk), Arkarua (probably and early echinoderm), or Spriggina and Parvancorina (probably early arthropods)? The answer is easy: It could give the impression of pre-Cambrian evolution that is unwanted from a creationist point of view.
Such inaccuracies is not much better than a direct lie.
The fact that these pre-Cambrian animals often are difficult to fit into present day phylae could be a hint that they are forerunners of those groups, and not yet have evolved the anatomical features, now defining the phylae.

Dr. Mitchell never comes near what a mystery the Cambrian fossils must be to a creationist: Why are there so many animals that are unfamiliar to us today, and none that belong to present day species, genera or even families? Some are so strange that they have been difficult even to put together as complete organisms. The mouthparts of Anomalocaris was originally thought to be a separate organisms. Up and down, front and rear of Hallucigenia only recently was figured out with any degree of reliability.
Actually, this problem penetrates all of the fossil record. Just one example: Flowering plants are found in all modern terrestrial ecosystems. Why do they only appear late in the fossil record? Why are there none found together with early amphibians (which themselves are very different from present day amphibians)?

Other articles

The list of articles below includes (to my knowledge) all AiG articles about the Cambrian explosion from 2014 and 2015. Most of them written by Elizabeth Mitchell. Together they show how difficult it is for creationists to be honest about the problems of their ’Theory’.

Since Darwin’s days, Scientists have recognized the Cambrian Explosion as a problem to evolutionary theory.

Though the problem is smaller now than in Darwin’s days, due to the finding of the Precambrian (Ediacaran) fauna, it is still a mystery why there is so little evidence of multicellular animal life before the Cambrium. 

Creationists face another problem: If the Cambrian (and Precambrian) fauna is actually only a few thousand years old, why is it so strange? Where did all this wonderful life go, and why is there nothing like bony or cartilaginous fish or other present day animals in the Burgess Shale or the Chengjiang finds?
Some of the Cambrian animals are so strange that it took a while to work what they were. As mentioned Anomalocaris and Hallocigenia are good examples. For some species scientists are still uncertain of which phylum to put them in. Pikaia was originally considered a chordate, but should perhaps best be placed in the Hemichordata. How to to put Didazoon and Banffia into the system is still uncertain.
(Reference: Janvier, Nature (2015) 520: 483-489)

The lack of present day fish is highlighted by the presence of more primitive vertebrates and invertebrate chordates. The Cambrian fish: Haikouella, Yunnanozoon, Metaspriggina, Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia, are all basal vertebrates, which mean that they do not belong any group of fish living today (Lampreys, Hagfish, cartilaginous fish, ray-finned fish, lobe-finned fish or lungfish)

The Ediacaran fauna is even stranger. For most Ediacaran fossils, just to decide which phylum they belong to has proven almost impossible (which is what you would expect form an evolutionary point of view). Some species scientists has decided to place in phylae that is now extinct.

The closest the AiG creationists get to addressing (though not admitting) the problem, is this comment by Andrew Snelling: ”The absence of certain creatures as fossils at any particular level in the fossil record is not evidence that those creatures didn’t exist at that time, just that they weren’t buried then.”
This is the greatest of understatements. This is not about ’certain creatures’ it is about all creatures. When you find that all the fossils in all the finds are different from all present day’s animals, you can conclude that the fauna was very different.

Articles on the Cambrian Explosion

One: Life’s unexpected explosion link
Canada’s New Cambrian Explosion: Burgess Shale chapter two link
Cambrian Explosion was the culmination of cascading causes, evolutionists claim link
Cambrian Explosion or Creation week - Key to vertebrate success? link
Burgess Shale’s Cambrian fossils should change our view of evolution link
Researchers devise alternate theory for Cambrian explosion link
A tale of shale and Oxygen in the explosion of life link
Jaw-dropping discovery in the Burgess Shale link
Cambrian predator wore its brain out in front link

Articles On Ediacaran Fossils

Multicellular life evolving in microfossils evolutionists say link
Early evolutionary ecosystems considered complex link

There is a clear tendency to understate the problems the Ediacaran fauna pose to creationism.
Of the following Ediacaran animals only very few are even mentioned on the AiG webpage.

Funisia, KimberellaCharnia, Spriggina, Yorgia, Ediacaria, Rugoconites, Pteridinium, Vendoglossa, Swartpuntia, Vernanimalcula, Parvancorina, Cloudina, Dickinsonia, Haootia.

Most of these have been impossible to fit into an existing phylum because they are too strange. Nothing like this lives today and no present day animals has been found as Ediacaran fossils.
Just as you would expect from evolution, contrary to what you would expect from creationism.