first_imgA soft embryo of a Cambrian worm, exquisitely preserved, makes Graham Budd (U. of Uppsala, Sweden) ask some hard questions about it and other recently-discovered embryo fossils in the Jan. 15 issue of Nature:1These fossils raise several questions, to say the least.  First, how could they possibly be preserved?  Second, why are they concentrated in a period (600-500 million years ago) that is already unfairly overstocked with exceptionally preserved fossils, such as those of the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies?  Third, do they tell us anything about animal evolution?He spends most of his article on the third question, but seems to end up with more questions than answers about the “miraculous preservation of these embryos.”The BBC News has a report and pictures of the embryos.Ask yourself how soft tissues could be exquisitely mineralized and preserved for 600 million years, when many later fossils have been reworked by storms, glaciers, moving continents and asteroid impacts.  More interesting than the data that seem to fit the reigning myth are the anomalies that do not.  This find does nothing to help evolutionists in their Cambrian explosion predicament (08/21/2002).  Graham Budd has been pushed by the disconnect between his expectations and the facts to the ultimate no-no in science: invoking miracles.(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *