Yes. The Cambrian rocks represent the rocks in which we first find
abundant evidences of complex life or some of the most abundant
complex forms of life. We find sponges and jellyfish, and worms, and
brachiopods, and trilobites, and worms, and sea cucumbers and things
like that. Very complicated.
Now, what we see in the fossil record is huge morphological gaps
between these various basic types. And we see that from the very
beginning. I want to document that by quoting from the chapter called
"The Evolution of Complex Animals" written by James W. Valentine. (I
want to make clear that he is an evolutionist. He does think that
these creatures have evolved.) This is found in the book What
Darwin Began, edited by Laurie Godfrey, who also has written a
book against creationists. But what he says here, I think is very
significant. Dr. Valentine says this, "The fossil record [this is
found on page 263 of this book, by the way] is of little use in
providing direct evidence of the pathways of descent of the phyla or
of invertebrate classes. Each phylum with a fossil record had already
evolved its characteristic body plan when it first appeared, so far as
we can tell from the fossil remains. And no phylum is connected to any
other via intermediate fossil types. Indeed, none of the invertebrate
classes can be connected with another class by a series of
You see what he says, "No phylum can be connected to any other
phylum." We have discontinuity, not a continuum. Evolution demands a
continuum, but what we have is discontinuity.
Now, what we have here from the fossil record, from the actual
historical record, the actual evidence, is the fact that they have
multiple origins as Dr. Wise has suggested creation would expect. We
find that they have had multiple origins as far as this record is
concerned. Clams, snails, trilobites. When we first find a trilobite
in a fossil record itís a trilobite, and we donít have it led up to by
a series of transition forms.
Now, the same is true when we go from the invertebrates to the
vertebrates, or the fishes. There is a huge morphological gap
thereójust boggles the mind as a matter of factóbecause each one of
the major fish kinds appear fully formed. Now, of course evolutionists
would suggest that there must have been quite an enormous time span
going from some invertebrate to a fish as we change an invertebrate,
either a soft-bodied form or a form with hard outer and soft inner
parts to a vertebrate, which has soft outer parts and hard internal
And, so they suggest quite a large time span is involved, and it
seems to me that billions times billions of these intermediates would
have lived and died during that vast time span. And we do have as Dr.
Wise mentioned, billions at least, potentially available of these
invertebrates. Our museums have many tens of millions of fossils of
fishes, it seems reasonable...
Wise: Duane, not all evolutionists feel that there was a large
amount of time there.
Gish: Well, there would be a considerable time gap.
Wise: What do you mean by considerable?
Gish: When you see the first invertebrates, the time when you
find the first fishes, they would say at least 50 million years, I
think, so thereís, well, thereís a considerable time gap there.
Wise: But that isnít demanded by evolutionary theory.
Gish: Well, it shows by the evidence since we suppose time
between the first appearance of the invertebrates and the first
appearance of the fishes, at least as far as they are saying is about
50 million years. So, empirically, then it would be on their time
scale to be 50 million years. Something like that.
Anyhow, going from one to the other should have produced
considerable fossil record. We ought to have, it seems to me, a vast
number of these forms in our museums. But as a matter of fact, we
donít find these intermediate forms. For example, I have an article
here published by Errol White, He is one of the senior paleontologists
at the British Museum of the Natural History, is an ichthyologist, an
expert on fishes. This was his presidential address to the Linnean
Society and was on lung fishes. This is what he says in the article,
on the last page of the article, "But whatever ideas authorities may
have on the subject, the lung fishes, like every other major group of
fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing."
And he italicizes the word "nothing" to emphasize it.
It is true, you take the three major divisions of bony fishes,
every one of them appears, they are bony, theyíre very diverse when
they first appear and we do not have a trace of an ancestor for any of
these major bony fishes. Now, it seems to me, it would stretch our
credulity to the breaking point to suggest we could have all that
evolution without leaving a trace. It seems to me if we ask ourselves
a question, then, which model of origins, creation or evolution, do
the data fit best, it seems to me we would have to say it fits the
creation model far better than the evolutionist. Now, the evolutionist
is trying to find his way out of this dilemma, and theyíve suggested
many ideas, but they admit, most of them would, that the dilemma still
exists. The Cambrian explosion as it is called is still a great