A new study mapping the evolutionary history of animals indicates that Earth's first animal--a mysterious creature whose characteristics can only be inferred from fossils and studies of living animals--was probably significantly more complex than previously believed.
[...]
I think the first sentence of the attached article says it well. "Earth's first animal...was probably...more complex than previously believed."
Actually, this article is so riddled with careful language and unsubstantiated, unproven presuppositions, it's hard to see how a journalist would even print this stuff as factual. Let's quote mine. . .
"The tree of life is a hierarchical representation of the evolutionary relationships between species that was introduced by Charles Darwin."
Presupposition: All life evolved from a single form of life at some time in the past.
Fact: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures...So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm...And God saw that it was good."
Discuss: Since we're dealing in this article with aquatic life, I think it's of some worthy note that God created the "great" sea creatures along with the microscopic life with which the seas teem.
"This finding challenges the traditional view of the base of the tree of life, which honored the lowly sponge as the earliest diverging animal. 'This was a complete shocker...So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong.'"
Presupposition: The tree of life, as written, is sacrosanct and correct.
Fact: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures..."
Discuss: Well, duh, Mr. Dunn. Something has gone very, very wrong. You have placed your own fallible mind and understanding ahead of God. You have fallen for the lie. And here you have evidence that the "tree of life" is no longer a Holy Relic to venerated, but merely a relic of man's own misplaced faith in himself.
"...We don't have fossils of the oldest comb jelly, therefore, there is no way to date the earliest jelly to determine when it diverged."
Presupposition: That it "diverged" at all.
Fact: "God created the ... sea creatures ... according to their kinds"
Discuss: The article goes on to discuss what happened "after diverging from other species." It is full of words and phrases like "probably", "likely", "going to" and "will." There is nothing new under the sun, it seems.
What's most troublesome about stories like this is the way in which otherwise intelligent people are blinded by the reality of their own presuppositions. Not once does it occur to PhysOrg, the NSF or Mr. Dunn himself to question the base premise of this study: that evolution is a fact, not a theory.
If you use a pure exegetical reading of the book of Genesis to inform your worldview, then it becomes clear that finds like this support and uphold the Genesis record. God created all of the original sea creatures on the fifth day. If you don't -- that is, if you rely on the fallible opinions of mankind, where you are boxed in by your own premises, then when a finding like this happens along, you have to invent a story of your own to make the finding fit. We have to 'rethink' the tree of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment