62. Why aren’t modern vertebrates found with invertebrates in Cambrian fossil layers?

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
— Genesis 1:20-23

According to the Bible (and creationists), all life on earth was created at the beginning of creation. Since then, many species have gone extinct, and a few have changed in minor ways, but all have remained of their same “kind.”

Evolutionists take a decidedly different view, where all life begins with single-celled organisms, and slowly evolves into more and more complex life over hundreds of millions of years.

With such widely opposing views, one would think the fossil evidence could only point in one direction, but both sides seem to use the same evidence to support their own conclusions.

One such piece of evidence comes from Cambrian fossil layers.

Creationists point to the “Cambrian explosion” as evidence for spontaneous creation. The Cambrian explosion represents a time when many forms of relatively complex multi-cellular life seem to suddenly burst onto the scene. This layer was preceded mostly by single-celled life, and less complex colonies of cells.

Scientists see the Cambrian explosion as a time when emerging evolutionary forces (e.g. predation and sexual reproduction) and unique opportunities (e.g. every environmental niche was unoccupied) helped to spark an explosion of diverse life over the course of “only” 20-25 million years (starting around 542 million years ago).

And while the Cambrian explosion is certainly a fascinating event, it doesn’t begin to explain one of the biggest mysteries of the Cambrian fossil layers.

The Burgess Shale

One of the most famous Cambrian fossil sites is the Burgess Shale. Located in the mountains of British Columbia, scientists claim this site represents a snapshot of late Cambrian life from about 505 million years ago (give or take a few million years).

Creationist claim the site represents a snapshot of Noah’s flood, from about 4,0004,300 years ago (give or take a few weeks).

The sea creatures in the Burgess Shale were buried in turbulent sediments of the great Flood.
— Proud progress or cosmic casino?, Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S.

God’s Word contains His own eyewitness account of the origin of all kinds of animals in Genesis chapter 1. He created all kinds of animals on the 5th and 6th days of Creation week about 6,000 years ago. They have continued to vary and reproduce only within their created kinds as we would expect on the basis of biblical history. Biblical history also tells of the global Flood. Rapid burial of animals in water borne sediment during the violence of the global Flood explains the excellent preservation seen in deeper fossil layers like the Burgess Shale… buried… around 4,300 years ago during the Flood.
— Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Thirty Million Years Didn’t Really Change China’s Jurassic Park, March 8, 2014

Since its discovery, the Burgess Shale has given up over a quarter-million fossils, representing over 150 different species. But strangely, out of all of those fossils, not one modern vertebrate has ever emerged — not one single modern fish, reptile, mammal, or bird.

If all life was created at the same time, shouldn’t we find both invertebrates and modern vertebrates in the same layers? Was this just an isolated incident?

The Chengjiang Maotianshan Shales

On the other side of the world, at the Chengjiang Maotianshan Shales in the Yunning Province of China, around 185 different species of Cambrian soft-bodied fossils have been unearthed. These fossils are believed to have come from an earlier time in the Cambrian, but just as in British Columbia, there are no signs of truly modern fish or other modern vertebrates.

And as it turns out, the same is true for all Cambrian fossil sites around the world.

Graphic showing locations of Burgess Shale-type deposits around the world

According to evolutionists, modern vertebrates don’t make an appearance because they wouldn’t exist for another 65 million years. But Creationists disagree, and are tasked with having to explain the mysterious absence of all modern vertebrates.

Few creationists even acknowledge this problem, but for those that do, their explanations fall into one of these three categories.

1. “Modern fish and vertebrates have been discovered in these ‘Cambrian’ deposits!”

Some creationists claim that the lack of vertebrates is no longer an issue, since vertebrates have been discovered at Cambrian sites. While it’s true that several vertebrates have been discovered (namely Pikaia, Haikouichthys, Myllokunmingia, and Metaspriggina), the evidence is greatly exaggerated, as these tiny creatures are a far cry from modern vertebrates.

While each of these “fish” had a basic notochord, they lacked the bony vertebrae column we would associate with most modern fish.

While Metaspriggina didn’t have any hard bones in its skeleton, it did grow a rod of cartilage from head to tail, called a notochord, to keep its body stiff. Human embryos develop a notochord, too, but it later turns into the disks of cartilage between the vertebrae in our spine.
— Carl Zimmer, New York Times, A Long-Ago Ancestor: A Little Fish, With Jaws to Come, June 11, 2014

When the creationist talks about fish fossils, we tend to imagine something like this:

But in reality, the “fish” looked more like this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

While these creatures may have been on their way to becoming fish, it’s deceptive to group them with modern vertebrates. Not only do they lack bony spines, they also lack jaws, and many of the fins seen on modern fish.

Bony fish (osteichthyes) are actually the most plentiful of all vertebrates, having around 28,000 species, so it’s odd that not one should make its way into any of the Cambrian fossil sites. Finding a marine reptile or mammal would be even more spectacular, since these animals are said to have evolved much later.

The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record. The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms. However, they did include the basic features that define the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong.
— Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?, BioLogos.com

2. “All fossils were buried around the same time, but the invertebrates were buried first.”

If the world was once flooded over the course of 40 days, we might expect to find all animals buried in a single layer of sediment.

NoahWe should be able to dig in various locations around the world, and find a singular “flood layer,” which would contain the fossils of dogs, cats, dinosaurs, giraffes, kangaroos, moose, deer, cows, people, primates, fish — all animals — all mixed together. And up until a couple hundred years ago, this is exactly what Christians expected to find.

But instead of finding one layer containing all known animals, scientists discovered hundreds of layers, each with varying types of animals (like our Cambrian layers, which only contain invertebrates).

Until recently, creationists simply denied that these layers represented any sort of evolutionary geologic column.

The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data.
— John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2003. Don’t the Fossils Prove Evolution?Acts & Facts. 32 (4).

But more recent creationists have succumb to the evidence, and they discount the denials of their predecessors.

To the contrary, we can walk across various regions of the earth and observe that the rock layers and the fossils contained therein generally match what is depicted in the widely accepted geologic column diagrams. … These rock layers are observable data, so the diagram is not some figment of evolutionary bias based on “the fossil content of their rocks.”
— Dr. Andrew Snelling, Order in the Fossil Record, Nov. 23, 2009

While some creationists are finally agreeing with scientists about the geologic column, they still insist that most fossil layers were laid down during Noah’s flood. But if that’s true, why are there no modern vertebrates found in the Cambrian layers?

According to creationists, it’s not because the fossil layers represent various stages of evolution, it’s because different types of animals were buried at different times during a single flood.

The fossils simply record the order in which plants and animals were buried about 4,500 years ago during the one-year Flood described in Genesis chapters 6–8.
— Tas Walker, Slow fish in China, Creation 22(3):38–39, June 2000

According to Dr. Snelling, these fossils were buried in the order of single-celled organisms, then marine invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, reptiles, land vertebrates, dinosaurs, and finally mammals. (I can only imagine what an inconvenient truth this is, for the creationist to have to admit that the flood just happened to bury these animals in the exact same order that evolutionists claim evolution occurred!)

Dr. Snelling claims that the single-celled organisms were probably fossilized first, prior to the flood, since they’re small and easily buried. Once the flood waters began to rise, the invertebrates became the first flood victims.

Interestingly, the flood’s turbulent water-borne sediments were just bad enough to capture invertebrates, but not so bad as to impede the escape of all modern vertebrates. Oddly enough, even large invertebrates were trapped by the sediments, while tiny boned fish were able to escape. Stranger still, even all the dead vertebrates that perished prior to the flood somehow managed to escape. (Whale bones, for example, can take up to a decade to decompose on the sea floor.)

Next came the fish, which is a bit odd. Killing fish by adding water is like trying to kill a man by giving him more land. I have to assume these fish were buried in thick sediment, because if they simply died from a change in salinity, they would’ve likely floated to the surface, and would’ve come to rest on top of all the other dead animals. Once again, strangely, the sediments were just bad enough to capture these fish, but not so bad as to impede the escape of all modern marine reptiles and mammals.

Next were the land plants, amphibians, and lizards. These weren’t fast enough to keep up with the larger vertebrates that were now heading for the hills, or smart enough to run for the hills like all the mammals and dinosaurs.

As the waters continued to rise, they eventually covered the larger land vertebrates.

A few days later, all the dinosaurs had run out of energy, and cried out to the mammals, “F**k it, save yourselves!”

All the mammals (dogs, puppies, cats, kittens, deer, fawn, etc.), regardless of their size, managed to make it to higher elevations, before they too were buried in sediment.

This flood hypothesis raises many questions. Why were the animals sorted by their various classes, instead of by their size and speed? Why are there hundreds of rock layers instead of just one? Why didn’t velociraptors, which had an estimated running speed of 40 mph, make it to the higher elevations? What happened to the thousands of different types of flying pterosaurs? Wouldn’t they have all made it to higher ground? Shouldn’t we find their bones in the top layer of animals, along with fish and birds (which would’ve floated)?

While evolution may take millions of years, the flood only took one, so I don’t see why we can’t prove the creationist hypothesis through experimentation. For example, imagine if we were to place a variety of animals in a large, walled-off, graded area, and then simulated the flood (sorry PETA, it’s for science). What would be the result? When we drained the water a year later, would we find these animals neatly separated by distinct layers like in the geologic column? Or would they settle into a single mixed layer? What if we simulated the turbulent sedimentary deposits suggested by creationists? Could we recreate what we see in the fossil layers? Could we first trap all the invertebrates without killing any fish? Would the animals be sorted by class in each layer? Or would there be a mix of whatever animals just happened to be in each area at the time of each sedimentary incident?

I can’t imagine any experiment ever adequately recreating the kind of “ordered chaos” theorized by creationists, but if this kind of order occurred naturally all over the world, then it should be easy to prove.

3. “All fish micro-evolved from an earlier kind of fish.”

A small number of creationists admit that the Cambrian deposits do not contain modern vertebrates, and that the fossil layers could not have been laid down by a single flood. Recognizing this, some have suggested that all fish may have evolved from an earlier fish kind, like those early fish found in the Cambrian deposits.

This is similar to the creationist argument for dogs. Some creationists claim that only one kind of dog boarded the ark (to conserve space), and that all dog breeds have micro-evolved from this pair over the last 4,000 years. Likewise, God may have only created fish “kind,” and those fish micro-evolved into all the fish we have today.

It’s ironic that a group that denies the power of evolution should place the biggest demands upon it, while still denying macro-evolution. As long as the kind never changes, the creationist doesn’t seem to care how much rapid micro-evolution is required.

Many creationists will accept fish as one kind totally. Henry Morris, for example, once suggested that all fish, ALL FISH, could have microevolved from salmon in less than 500 years. Anyone who can swallow batfish, sharks, rays, guppies, flounder, and piranha all being one kind, but finding evolution between chimps and humans impossible is in serious denial.
— Mike Dunford, Microevolution, Macroevolution, and our Species, July 3, 2007

Indeed. If micro-evolution can account for boneless, jawless fish evolving into fish with bones, jaws, lungs, and even wings, why can’t micro-evolution account for a apes developing a larger brain and upright posture?


So we have Genesis telling us one story, and the Cambrian fossil record telling us another. While the complete lack of modern vertebrates in Cambrian fossil layers should present a serious problem for creationists, they refuse to admit it. Why?

Although there is much discussion among creationists about the details relating the Flood and creation to the geologic column, all agree that the majority of the fossil-bearing rock record is a product of the Genesis Flood and that any model must first be aligned with Scripture.
— AnswersInGenesis.org, Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, Chapter 6, Geologic Column, January 20, 2011 

This statement is indicative of the larger problem: the creationist doesn’t need science to help him find truth, because he already believes he has the truth. If the evidence doesn’t point to creationism, then the evidence needs to be reinterpreted. But is this a reliable way of thinking? And has the creationist earned the right to dismiss any and all ideas that don’t align with scripture?

While the creationist may feel quite strongly about his convictions, there’s no shortage of conviction in other religions, cults, or psychiatric hospitals. Convictions are not as reliable as evidence, because they can lead us to so many different conclusions.

For example, if we allowed every religion to interpret historical evidence to support their own conclusions, the evidence would point in a thousand different directions! If we want to get to the truth, our best hope is to let the evidence speak for itself as much as possible.

Following the evidence is a bit like following a bloodhound: if we let it lead the way, it should guide us — and everyone else — to the same conclusion; but if we lead it, we will only end up wherever we want to go.

Religious convictions lead us to many conclusions, evidence (hopefully) only leads us to one. If that evidence just happens to lead to a religious conclusion, great! But it should do so on its own, we should not “drag the bloodhound” to that destination and proclaim, “The evidence leads here!”

Creationists will often admit that they have a strong Biblical bias, and will try to rationalize it by saying, “Evolutionists are also biased by evolutionary teachings!” To some extent, this is true, everyone is biased. The question is, is the biased individual willing to change his mind with new evidence? And what evidence is his bias based upon?

Keep in mind that most early scientists started out as creationists, but new discoveries forced them to question their earlier assumptions.

Maybe if things were different — if scientists had discovered an obvious global flood layer; or if we found that human DNA was completely different from the animals; or if stars were only visible up to 6,000 light years away — then there would’ve been little reason to question the Bible, but that’s not what was discovered.

As we’ve seen previously, Christians have a history of reading their own ideas into the Bible, instead of letting the text speak for itself. Likewise, they also seem to be reading ideas into the fossil record, instead of letting it speak for itself.

In getting back to the question, where does this evidence lead us? It seems to be saying that there was a time when invertebrates existed, but vertebrates did not. This is inconsistent with the Genesis account; God has made a claim, but the evidence here does not substantiate that claim.

But how do we know we have followed the evidence correctly? If all human knowledge were suddenly lost, I believe that future generations could use the same evidence to draw the same conclusions. If they discovered the same fossils, the same geologic column, the same homologies, and the same genes, they would likely conclude that all living things appear related. It’s almost unthinkable that they would look at the evidence and conclude that all life was created simultaneously, about six to ten thousand years ago, before being wiped out by a single cataclysmic global flood, except for a handful of animals, which inexplicably survived in the Middle East, and radiated out from there. The former conclusion comes from following the evidence, and the latter from leading it.

This entry was posted in Intelligent Design?, Logic and Reason and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to 62. Why aren’t modern vertebrates found with invertebrates in Cambrian fossil layers?

  1. Tyler Stone says:

    Actually, according to “Dog Science”; found on Netflix, all dogs breeds originate with the wolf. That doesn’t contradict your argument though, because the dog is probably one of the most man-manipulated species on this planet, whereas the fish, birds, etc …have not had the same meddling.

    • Yes, I believe it’s the gray wolf. Dogs are probably the greatest example of how a little selection over a short time can drastically change a species.

      • Anonymous says:

        We’ve also demonstrated how, even with the best of intentions, the hazards that can develop when a “designer” tinkers with a species (just think of the various breed specific health anomalies and chronic problems that could not have been foreseen. Kinda tosses out the ID crowd’s pet idea, or at least shows the designer’s incompetence.)

  2. Guilherme Silva says:

    Another great question! Greetings from Brazil!

    I have to say that, as a former traditionalist Catholic, I identify myself very much with you. I was completely religious and dogmatic, accepting biblical literalism and creationism as proved facts, like everyone in my ex-sect (SSPX) does. After some time, I started having questions, like, for example:

    “If Cain and Abel are the first humans (after Adam and Eve), this would put them at least at 50.000 years ago, if not much earlier (it deppends from what we consider as “human”). But they are described as a farmer and a shepherd, occupations that only existed at 10.00 years ago (Neolithic Revolution), at best (and this because I tried to reconcile Science with religion, being until then a supporter of “Old-Earth Creationism” or Intelligent Design);

    “Catholic dogma (or you accept it, or you aren’t Catholic) teaches that ‘God has created a good world’ (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott), but we know that animals killed and ate each other, had disease (tumors detected in dinosaur fossils, for example), and therefore, suffered, since the beginning, something unconceivable in a perfect world; and, as it is thought that all these bad things were brought with the Original Sin, we have an obvious conflict here. And, since we have evidence for the latter, we can discard this particular Catholic dogma, and (since this is how Catholicism works), the Catholic faith altogether”.

    Well, let’s just say that in the end, after many questions and my frustration with the religious answers, I’ve become an Agnostic. Religion, never again!

    • Hi Brazil, thanks for writing!

    • Anonymous says:

      Guilherme, if you want some good books about evolution, you might want to check out Richard Dawkins “Blind Watchmaker” and (just got it, haven’t read it yet) Jerry Coyne “faith vs fact” There’s lots more brilliantly written, I just can’t think of the authors names atm. Both Dawkins and Coyne are evolutionary biologists and good speakers. Check them out🙂

  3. Kevin says:

    First I have to establish that most predominate scientist believed the earth was flat at one time and I believe it was the Christopher Columbus’s study of the bible which made him believe the earth was round. In addition, recent study has led me to believe the method of dating fossils by the layers of strata is not correct. It has been shown by experiment and through coastal flooding along with river and stream flooding that multiple layers can be laid down simultaneously with in a fraction of the time that mainstream geology suggest. Check this video out. claimshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWlNTLPozMo I believe in fact it is mainstream science that refuses to accept the facts, or adjust their findings to support their claim. Furthermore, fossils have been found such as trees spanning through several layers of strata, which is impossible if these layers were laid down over millions of years. Therefore, I argue that it is unknown which fossils were laid down first and which last. For those who are looking for answers, there is no scientific evidence out there that can disprove God. If you truly seek God he will revel himself to you.

    • rautakyy says:

      @Kevin, as for now, I leave the forming of georgraphic strata to our gracious host the 500, but about Columbus, I have something to say. The fact that the world is a sphere was a well known fact to many medieval scholars. Did they properly understand why the ancients had reached this conclusion is a nother matter. However, it had been established by ancient pre-Christian Greeks and Egyptians. The circumference of the earth had allready been calculated quite accurately by Erastothenes allready around 240 BC. It is a wild claim, that Christopher Columbus learned the form of the earth from the Bible when he actually had at his disposal by far better sources for that information. Such an extraordinary claim requires more evidence, than your admission of believing this was so. Do you have any? However, wether Chris Columbus was lead to his conclusions rather by the Bible, than older Greek research does not really matter, because he was wrong. He calculated the circumference of the planet totally wrong and thought to his dying day, that he had visited India.

      Scientists may be wrong about a great many things. Science however has evolved a lot since the times when scientists thought the earth was flat. Has it not? It is by science you know this, not by Chris Columbus researching the Bible, really. But the Bible has not evolved at all. It still makes silly claims about the creation, and all sorts of miraculous interferences by all sorts of alledged supernatural entities, to the fabric of the material, observable reality, with as much evidence to back up those wild claims as other fairytales and religious scriptures.

      For those who are looking for answers a god is a poor excuse of an answer for stuff we simply do not know about. Basicly just a non-answer. A god does not explain anything. It may seem like an answer, but it really is not. A god is used as if it were an answer to questions like, why are we here, or what is moral, but it does not answer those questions. Does it? Not even if we could show it was for real, and we can not, or can you? Look! If a god made us, that does not answer us why did this god make us, does it? So, it leaves the question about why are we here equally open as it was before a god was purpoted as some sort of answer.

    • DanD says:

      Science has never said that multiple layers cannot be layed down in very short order. This does happen on riverbanks and beds, and is responsible for polystryate fossils, as you suggest. Identical conditions can be seen in modern tidal marches or during regular river floods. The fact that on occasion thick layers are formed very quickly is well understood and accepted by science. To extend this statement to the claim that all layers were formed quickly is an illogical step, however.

      Deep ocean sediments take centuries to add inches. This can be easily be seen by looking at the rate of burial of historically recorded shipwrecks and similar objects in the deep ocean. Therefore, when we find fossils buried in strata that are clearly deep ocean, and those strata are thousands of feet thick, it can not be explained by a single large flood. Likewise upland forests gain fractions of an inch in a year. You’ll notice that polystryate tree fossils are pretty much all swamp dwelling trees.

      Put simply, the only reason you believe that science ignores facts is because your understanding of the scientific understanding is relatively shallow. All of these creationist arguments have been answered, more than once. The problem is that most of them were answered in scientific literature, often decades ago.

  4. jamesbradfordpate says:

    Reblogged this on James' Ramblings.

  5. 500Q (and indirectly Kevin above),

    Another great informative post, out of…61 others! Well done! I will be sharing this post with others.

    No matter how or who challenges your subject, posts, questions, attempts at deciphering the available records — even those compelling or not so compelling, including all religious records &/or evolving scientific records — AT LEAST you cause us to think deeply, hard, and in ways we probably couldn’t have previously imagined! Thank you for that! Personally, I would much rather have ALL info, ALL available data accessible (like a jury in court) even if some of it were highly biased! I want and can make the final choices, not someone else pushing it on me with his/her ego-centric agenda. Too many are unwilling to do all the exhausting homework and all the exhausting legwork, ON THEIR OWN — i.e. truly seeking some purpose or intelligent design — like you and I do! I applaud you Sir.

    I went HARD and thorough “looking for God” in believers, in nature, and of course in canonical “scriptures” (which are in themselves highly suspect & fallible) and 10-15 years later (even after 3 yrs of Xian seminary!) found in two of those three MORE fallacies and myths easy for the lazy to cling to for relief of their fears… further perpetuated by the three Abrahamic religions. As I’ve mentioned before, most Xian apologists use Judeo-Christian and Christian sources ONLY to back their claims of their canonical bible, not any significant number of non-Christian sources, often none at all. Further support of this is beyond the scope of this comment and your fine post, so I’ll spare everyone.😉

    Again Sir, excellent work! Your labor is greatly appreciated!

  6. John says:

    Sir, I hope you don’t turn into an anti-theist; from your first post to now, there seems to be a slight transformation. All Christians don’t hold to the same belief of an old earth; it’s futile to even argue this among ourselves, for it doesn’t truly matter. Looking to the past for scientific answers is fine, but you shouldn’t base the future upon it. What are your thoughts?

    Seventeen-year-old Christians guy.

    • Hi John.

      Astute of you to notice, and kudos for reading this as a young Christian.

      I can’t deny that the more I’ve learned, the less I’ve come to believe, but my mind remains open. Just as I was willing to become critical of Christianity — a belief I NEVER thought I would reject — I would gladly switch sides if I were to discover consistent evidence to the contrary. (E.g., if God starts healing amputees who pray in Jesus’ name, Sign me up!)

      I don’t know if I would consider myself anti-theist (i.e. someone who actively seeks to discourage others from believing). If believing in God or Christianity makes someone happy, then I want them to be happy, and I want them to have the freedom to believe, even if they choose to believe in a delusion. The problem I see is that there are so many religious people out there trying to force their memes into new minds, and not enough vocal critics. There are people asking questions, who don’t realize that there are serious problems with Christianity or other faiths. While religion does do a lot of good, it can also do a lot of damage when left unchecked. Religion has led to theocracies, stonings, gentile mutilation, disrespect for the environment, financial abuse, holy wars, mass suicide, sexism, a disdain for others in the “out group,” and has motivated people to blow up abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings, all of which I am against. So… I guess you could say I’m pro-free-thought, but anti-extremism.

      I understand many Christians no longer believe in a young earth, just as many Christians now believe in evolution, and reject a literal interpretation of Noah’s ark. To be frank, I believe these adaptations were made in an attempt to salvage their faith. More recently, even the idea of hell has come under fire (no pun intended), as reasonable Christians recognize a loving creator would never create souls he knew would be tormented forever. These religious memes adapt to suit our mental needs.

      So getting back to the above post, we see that the Bible tells us that all animals were created at the same time, and that the evidence showed that this wasn’t the case; this SHOULD impact our thinking moving forward. We can either try to deny that this is what the Bible teaches, or ignore it, or try desperately to reinterpret the evidence, or we can just admit that the Bible isn’t a reliable source of information.

      Keep asking questions!

      • Anonymous says:

        I was a “live and let live” atheist for a long time, but with the radical religious right surging up in force in the policital arena, and the rapid fire assault in women’s rights, abortion rights, LGBT, gay marriage, the assault of science education in public schools…. I had to raise my voice and take the fight to them, I consider myself proud to be an Anti-theist to stem the flow of the religionuts. As I like to call the.😉

        • Anonymous says:

          I just don’t think we can sit idly by, while the creationists and anti-choicers, going on the attack on the anti-gay and LGBT protesters, women’s rights, public sex Ed in schools, there’s so many things the leaders are trying to legislate,mane it’s scary how close we may be getting to a theocracy if not careful. Oh and the duggar scandal, we can’t allow that to get swept under the rug!

          • I don’t want to over take this blog, so I’ll be brief. My pro-life (anti abortion) stance has never been because of my religious beliefs. It’s a barbaric procedure and we as a humane and educated society should be ashamed it’s so commonly done.

  7. 500Q, another great post!!! This is a topic I’ve been researching on my own and u explained so much in a simple way. The pictures helped too, I was like “WOW” . Thanks again!!!!!

  8. Phschool says:

    Your question: 62. Why aren’t vertebrates found with invertebrates in Cambrian fossil layers?

    They are. Scientists agree that vertebrates are indeed found in the early Cambrian, along with the invertebrates. It does not require much in the way of searching to find this information.


    • Hi Phschool,

      Likewise, it would not require much in the way of searching to see that Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys (the two vertebrates addressed in your link) are also discussed (and pictured) in the above question.

      As your article points out, it is EXTREMELY rare to find anything related to vertebrates in the Cambrian fossil layers:

      “Among the TENS OF THOUSANDS of animals found in these two deposits, paleontologists had previously pulled up TWO slender creatures that fit into the chordate phylum—the broad category that includes vertebrates. But those two species lacked well-defined heads, sophisticated gills, and other features that would provide them entrée into the vertebrate subphylum.”

      Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys are a great find, but they are still jawless, boneless (cartilage), paperclip-sized “fish” that resemble worms more than they do modern fish. While we are “practically certain that these are vertebrates,” they are a far cry from modern fish or modern vertebrates, which would help to prove that these animals were created around the same time.


Leave a reply (but please keep it related to the topic)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s