1
The Trilobite: Enigma of Complexity
A Case for Intelligent Design
Arthur V. Chadwick and Robert F. DeHaan
Trilobites are extinct members of the large animal group (phylum Arthropoda) to which
the modern insects belong. These creatures left a long and detailed fossil record in rocks beginning in earliest Cambrian (550 million radiometrric years1) and ending in the Permian (250
million radiometric years ago). Trilobites were complex, exquisite forms having elaborate
segmented bodies, cephalized nervous systems (head-to-tail orientation), with jointed
appendages and swimmerets, antennae and compound eyes.
(Insert Figure 1 here)
Because trilobites are extinct, we know very little of their life habits except for what we
can deduce from association with other forms that do have living representatives, and from
careful reconstructions of the geologic deposits in which they are found. However, the theory
of evolution has provided us a conceptual framework for reconstructing the physiological and
molecular biological nature of this earliest widely distributed metazoan (complex, multicellular
organisms) form in unimagined detail. The reconstruction is of great significance in providing
us with a picture of the richness and complexity of one of the earliest pervasive metazoan
creatures. It will also contribute substantially to our understanding of the processes that would
have had to precede the appearance of these amazing creatures found nearly everywhere near
the boundary between rocks relatively barren of metazoan life, and those rocks containing
abundant evidence of such life.
During the past 30 years, the tools of modern molecular systematics, along with
advances in our understanding of cellular and molecular processes, have challenged the
standard theory of undirected, naturalistic evolution proposed in its original form by Darwin.
2
It is now possible to make detailed comparisons of the molecular features of a variety of
organisms and to construct genetic relationships between organisms, called phylogenetic
linkages, based upon those comparisons. With such powerful tools available, it is not necessary
to guess what kinds of processes were operative in organisms that are no longer available for
study. Thus much of the molecular architecture of ancient organisms can be reconstructed
from data readily available from contemporary living animals. The conclusions of such work
are rather surprising and comprise the topic of this presentation.
Before we begin to explore the nature of the trilobite, let us lay some groundwork for
the premises we will employ in our reconstruction. We will:
1) use a fundamental assumption of naturalistic evolutionary theory to demonstrate
that molecular biological traits shared by disparate organisms today require a shared or
common ancestry. This principle will allow us to unravel in exquisite detail the molecular
biology of the trilobite based on our knowledge of the molecular biology of contemporary
animals;
2)
show that the molecular biology of trilobites, one of the very earliest complex
multicellular animals to appear on earth, is in every sense as complex as that of any modern
form;
3) maintain that belief in the theory of naturalistic evolution is being preserved by
Darwinists who sytematically ignore or downplay evidence that contradicts or seriously
challenges their theory. Evidence of the complexity of the trilobite presented in this article
demonstrates the inadequacy of the theory of Darwinian evolution and will be interpreted
instead by reference to another theory of origins involving an Intelligent Designer.
3
Revealing the Past
What can we know about the molecular and cellular biology and physiology of the now
extinct trilobite?
The premise underlying this presentation is that we can determine in
exquisite and precise detail the mechanisms that were operating in the cells, tissues and
developmental processes of the trilobite when it first appeared on earth.2 This premise is
grounded in a fundamental construct of the evolutionary theory introduced above: that
complex molecular biological traits shared in common by disparate organisms require a shared
ancestry. This assumption is widely accepted and undergirds the entire historical study of
organic life, being the basis of modern scientific taxonomy. Thus, molecular features shared by
trilobites and mammals would require there to have been at some time in the distant past, a
common ancestor possessing those common features.3 Any other conclusion would require
highly unlikely events to have been replicated repeatedly with exacting precision, falsifying the
fundamental assumption of molecular systematics and taxing credulity beyond limits.
Consequently, any complex feature shared by modern arthropods and man, or arthropods and
the garden pea, must have been present in the ancestor common to both forms.
A
representation of such a proposed common ancestry for arthropods and humans is shown in
Figure 2 below.
(Insert Fig. 2 near here.)
Thus, the presence of features of cellular or molecular biology in common between
modern arthropods and man or other modern animal forms, requires that these features were
shared by the common ancestor of arthropods and man.
Since trilobites were derived
arthropods, they too must have exhibited these features shared by in modern arthropods and
other modern, complex animals, and we can attribute these complex features to this early
metazoan with confidence.
4
We will look at several examples drawn from a large number equally good examples of
complex molecular biological systems. It will, of course, be necessary to include some material
of a rather technical nature in order to establish the level of complexity present in cells. This is
unavoidable, because the background is needed to develop the salient points. These details are
well known to molecular biologists, but it is not necessary to be a molecular biologist or to
understand the details of the complexity in order to understand the significance of the
arguments.
DNA and the Chromosome
We are generally familiar with eukaryotic (nucleated) cells, the building blocks of all
multicellular complex organisms, including humans. These cells are fantastically complex and
highly integrated. The vast array of information in the cell is coded in the form of long (up to
15 cm or more) molecules of DNA carried on chromosomes. Every somatic cell in the human
body contains a complement of 46 chromosomes. All the DNA of a single human cell would
extend to nearly two meters if the DNA molecules from the 46 chromosomes were placed end
to end. This DNA is housed in a nucleus with a diameter of about 10 micrometers. Thus the
length of DNA in the nucleus of a single human cell is 200,000 times the diameter of the
nucleus. This would be roughly equivalent to packing 250,000 feet or 50 miles of kite string
into a shoebox! How does all this DNA fit into one tiny nucleus?
The DNA must be organized in a very precise way to fit into the nucleus and allow the
cell to have access to the needed genes, and at the same time to allow the DNA to be
duplicated, and precisely divided to the daughter cells during cell division. This process is
facilitated by the association of the DNA with a class of proteins called histones. Four different
histones form a very stable octet containing two copies of each molecule. Because histones are
positively charged to enable them to interact with the negatively charged DNA, the assembly of
the octamer requires the aid of several special scaffolding proteins. This assembled histone core
5
structure is so fundamental to cells that it is preserved across the entire spectrum of living
eukaryotic cells with almost no modification. For example, only one human amino acid change
distinguishes the histone H3 of a human from that of a sea urchin or a trilobite. Human H4
differs from pea H4 by only two amino acids!
One and a half turns of the DNA molecule (about 140 base pairs) are then wrapped
around each histone core to form a condensed structure called a nucleosome. The nucleosomes
are associated into larger structures called solenoids, comprised of 6 nucleosomes and a fifth
histone protein, further shortening the whole molecule. These helical solenoids are further
condensed in a complex arrangement that is anchored to the backbone of the chromosome
itself. The backbone is largely composed of a class of proteins with remarkable properties. They
are attached to the DNA molecule at specific sites. The protein can cut one strand of the DNA
molecule at the point of attachment, hang on to the cut ends, while passing the uncut strand
through the cut ends, then join the two ends of the cut strands again! This results in removing
undesirable tensions in the molecule. The resultant of all these condensations has accomplished
that which is unfathomable: reduced a molecule of DNA 10 cm long into a structure 50,000
times smaller. This complexity of the eukaryotic cell was present in the cells of the trilobite. But
our consideration of the complexity has only begun.
What is Required for Cell Division?
Growth, a basic biological process, is dependent on cell division. Without cell division
there would be no growth in multicellular animals and plants. Any cell, before it can divide in
a fashion that will maintain its integrity, must replicate its contents. The central core of
biological memory in the form of DNA must be replicated so that two equivalent copies of exist
in every daughter cell. In order to divide, the cell must replicate the entire length of each
chromosome, producing another two meters of DNA, in the case of human beings. These two
copies must then be separated from one another in such a way that one set of copies comes to
6
reside in each of the daughter cells. The cell must also make copies of all other molecules of
which it is comprised to prevent dilution of the cell contents by division. We will bypass
consideration of most of the complexity of cellular division, complexity shared by all eukaryotic
organisms, including trilobites, and focus our attention on only a few highlights. As we explore
these complexities, bear in mind that cells in trilobites divided in the same manner as do the
cells in modern animals, and the processes involved in the trilobite can clearly be established
from our assumptions.
Each human cell has 46 of these chromosomes that must be duplicated (92) and then
correctly segregated so that each daughter cell receives a complete set of 46 chromosomes.
Ninety-two separate bodies are moving through the cytoplasm on an unerring journey to the
correct daughter cell. The process is mediated by microtubles, structural elements of the cell
comprised of a spiral array of protein molecules around a hollow center much like a soda straw.
The chromosomes contain a special patch of protein which serves as the binding region for
attachment of microtubules, much like velcro. Once sufficient microtubules from opposite ends
of the cell have attached to the two members of each chromosome pair, the microtubules begin
to pull the attached chromosomes through the cytoplasm to opposite ends of the dividing cell.
The mechanism of movement appears to involve the contraction, expansion and
depolymerization of microtubules pulling the chromosomes through the cytoplasm in the
correct direction. These mechanisms are present in all eukaryotic cells, and the involvement of
microtubules and actin and myosin-like proteins in the cell division process illuminates the
complexity of a feature that must occur in all eukaryotic cells, including those of trilobites, one
of the first metazoan fossils of record. Keep this in mind as we explore an additional feature of
animal cells in particular: the transmission of a nerve impulse:.
The Synapse
7
One of the most significant cells in the body is the nerve cell or neuron, that carries the
nerve impulse. What is even more important is how one neuron transmits the impulse to other
neurons across the gap that lies between them, called the synapse.
The resting neuron has an electrical potential on its membrane of about 60 millivolts
negative on the inside. This potential is established by a special sodium/potassium pump
which uses cellular energy to pump positively charged sodium ions out of the cell. The nerve
impulse is initiated and propagated by an influx of sodium ions into the cell through special
protein sodium channels in the membrane. The propagation is mediated by the successive
opening of these channels, called Voltage Gated Sodium Channels, along the length of the
axon.
These channel proteins, located in the membranes of the neurons, are truly amazing in
their intricate construction. Each protein extends across the membrane 24 times, forming into a
barrel-shaped channel which has a voltage sensitive gate. As the depolarization of the nerve is
sensed by the pore protein, the gate opens and sodium ions flow into the cytoplasm,
propagating the voltage change and triggering the same response in adjacent pores. Once the
membrane is fully depolarized, that is, the nerve impulse has passed, a special extension of the
cytoplasmic portion of the protein resembling a ball and chain closes the channel, preventing
further depolarization until the resting membrane potential has been reestablished by the
sodium ion pump.
When a nerve impulse reaches the terminus of a nerve, it must pass the signal across a
gap to the next nerve cell. The juncture of the two cells is called a synapse, and the gap
separating the two cells is called a synaptic cleft. In many cells the transmission is effected by
the release of a neurotransmitter substance, often acetylcholine, a small biomolecule. The
acetylcholine is accumulated in a special cytoplasmic storage organ. This organ periodically
pinches off small packets filled with acetylcholine. The packet is then transported through the
8
cytoplasm by a unique protein called synapsin. This protein “walks” long the microtubules of
the cytoskeleton towards the membrane of the synaptic surface in a very anthropomorphic
fashion, carrying the synaptic packet along with it
In the membrane of the packet are a number of proteins not found elsewhere in the cell.
Two of these carry the technical names of synaptobrevin and synaptotagmin. Synaptobrevin
binds a complex of proteins. This complex in turn binds to syntaxin, another protein found
only in the plasma membrane in the region of the synapse, anchoring the acetylcholinecontaining packet to the membrane. Synaptotagmin, the other mentioned protein, has two sites
that can bind calcium ions. In the absence of calcium, synaptotagmin also binds to the protein
complex, and in this state prevents the packet from releasing its contents. When a nerve
impulse reaches the synaptic region, calcium channels similar to the voltage gated sodium
channels mentioned above are opened, allowing calcium to enter the cytoplasm.
Synaptotagmin binds the calcium and fusion protein can then bind to the complex. When this
occurs, the membrane of the packet fuses with the cell membrane by a mechanism not yet
understood, releasing the acetylcholine into the synapse, and triggering the response of the
neighboring nerve cell, thus propagating the nerve impulse. All these reactions of the traveling
nerve impulse occur in milliseconds.
There are many cytoplasmic packets in an ordinary cell. How do they know where they
are supposed to end up? Each packet has, in addition to its normal component of membrane
proteins, a special protein call Rab that directs the package to its correct destination, much as a
shipping label directs a package to its proper site. These shipping labels are added when the
packet is formed. They are read at the destination. If the packet has reached its proper site it is
retained. If not it is redirected elsewhere. The synaptic packet must also have the correct label
attached in order to be effective.
9
Meanwhile, other cytoplasmic proteins called clathrin identify the empty packet, and
surround it with a protein cage that preserves the membrane and the associated proteins from
being lost. The empty packet remains enclosed in the clathrin cage until it can be reunited with
the storage organ from which it was derived, for refilling.
This process which we have described in just the barest details, is common to all
animals with nervous systems, from the simplest invertebrates to humans. Because this process
represents a very complex mechanism shared by insects and humans, we can be absolutely
confident that nerves and synapses in trilobites worked this way too. Thus one of the earliest
complex, multicellular animals already possessed elements of the nervous system that are
found in modern insects and humans.
The Developmental Biology of Trilobites
What can we say about the complex pathways by which a single ovum in the ovary of a
mother trilobite became a functioning offspring? A great deal more than one might imagine,
thanks to recent advances in our understanding of molecular biology of development. Here we
will only be able to give the sketchiest details. Let us quickly tell you a little about how an
insect is formed, remembering that an insect belongs to the same phylum as a trilobite. Here
we will discuss a metamorphosing insect, the fruit fly, Drosophila. Because these insects are
quite small, it would be impractical to hatch a fully functional winged offspring from a single
fertilized ovum. The strategy of many insects is to lay an egg, which then “hatches” into a
bigger egg, called a caterpillar. The caterpillar is just a larger developing egg with “legs” and a
mouth for accumulating food material in preparation for the production of the adult form.
However, deep within the recesses of each caterpillar are the embryonic seeds of an entire adult
organism. Termed “imaginal disks”, these specialized tissues remain dormant until pupation,
at which time the body of the caterpillar dissolves, and the imaginal disks develop into the
various parts of the adult. This is in itself an exceedingly complex process, but the sequence of
10
events leading up to the formation of the imaginal disks give an unprecedented view into the
process of development that will be of great interest to us in our consideration of the trilobite.
While the egg is still within the ovary, unique distributions of special proteins are
already being established within its cytoplasm. These proteins originate either from the egg
nucleus itself or from maternal accessory cells surrounding the egg in the ovary. Subsequent to
fertilization additional series of genes are activated, producing additional regulatory proteins in
other specific regions of the fertilized egg. This asymmetric distribution of developmental
proteins results in an early embryo in which each cell contains a unique combination of
regulators. The balance of these developmental gene regulators determine which genes are
activated and which are suppressed in each cell and this asymmetry in turn determines head
and tail, and differentiation along the resulting body axis.
This whole system of development is fantastically complex. Genetic studies in
Drosophila revealed a class of developmental genes which when mutated resulted not just in a
single change, such as eye color, but produced either massive effects that were lethal, or
resulted in changes in body form on a monstrous scale. For example, a single gene mutation in
one of these regulatory genes results in legs growing where the antenna are normally found.
Another results in the formation of an extra body segment with an extra set of wings. Vast
regulatory networks link each of these developmental genes to hundreds of other genes. Much
to their astonishment, the investigators found the genes that were controlling development of
fruit flies and the genes that controlled the development of vertebrates, including mice and
men, were very similar in structure, and that the genes often controlled analogous parts of the
embryos of flies and men. Thus, these developmental gene sequences, present in flies and
humans, must also have been present in trilobites.
Subsequent study revealed the location of some of these genes on the chromosome.
When the major series of regulator genes that determine the head to tail polarity of the
11
Drosophila embryo (HOM-C genes) were identified and mapped, the investigators discovered
an amazing fact; one they were not expecting and were not equipped to deal with when they
found it: The genes that controlled development of the axis of the embryo from head to tail lay
on the chromosome in the same head-to-tail order as the portions of the anatomy of the
organisms whose development they were intended to control (colinearity). That is unexpected
for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the improbability of such an arrangement
occurring in the absence of a designer. There appears to be no functional reason for them to be
so ordered, although this picture could change. But that was not the most astonishing thing.
Subsequent studies on vertebrates (originally in mice, but also in humans), revealed
homologous types of regulatory proteins were responsible for ordering the head to tail
organization of the body of vertebrates, including humans. And these genes (called Hox genes),
very similar to the equivalent genes in Drosophila (for some homeotic genes the similarity
between Drosophila and human is 98%), lay on the chromosome in the same order as those in
the fruit fly! They must have had a common origin! And they must have been present in the
trilobite, one of the first metazoans found in the Cambrian.
Thus not only were all the
complexities of the eukaryotic cell, and the basic structures and processes of the nervous
system, present in one of the first complex animal forms, but all of the unfathomable
complexity of the processes of development, involving the interaction of thousands of genes,
that all cephalized forms appear to have in common, were in place in these early organisms.
The Trilobite Eye
The eye has been an object of wonder throughout recorded history because of its critical
functions and complexity of organization. The earliest trilobites had compound eyes similar to
those found in modern insects. Surely the existence of fully functional compound eyes on this
very early invertebrate has from time to time caused thoughtful evolutionists to seriously
question the basis of origin.
Some of the recently discovered properties of trilobite eyes
represent an “all time feat of function optimization.”4
In these trilobites the lens in the
12
individual ommatidium, the facet of the compound eye, was constructed of a single crystal of
calcite (calcium carbonate) with the optical c-axis of the crystal coincident with the optical axis
of the lens. That presents an unusual problem for the trilobite, since a simple thick spherical
lens of calcite could not have resolved the light into a coherent image. These Middle Paleozoic
trilobites, however, have a unique optical system unknown in any other creature that solves
this problem.5 The optical system is a biconvex lens composed of two lenses of differing
refractive indices, joined together. The interface of these two lenses is called a Huygens surface
as shown in the figure 3 below.
(Insert Fig. 3 near here.)
In order for the trilobite eye to correctly focus light on the receptors it would have to
have exactly this shape of biconvex lens as shown in the figure.6 The optical principles utilized
by this trilobite were elaborated by Huygens (and Descartes) in the 17th century, but the
trilobite lens worked perfectly well using these optical principles long before the Dutch
mathematician figured out how.
Levi-Setti stated with unabashed candor:
“The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion
years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting
interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed [emphasis
added] in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens
in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction.”7
The significance of the biconvex lens of the later trilobite ommatidia merits further
elaboration. A better example of intelligent design is hard to find. As Levi-Setti stated, “When
we humans construct optical elements, we sometimes cement together two lenses that have
different refractive indices, as a means of correcting particular lens defects”. 8 Obviously, no
one doubts that such optical elements in cameras, field glasses, and telescopes are intelligently
designed. Indeed, in a light-hearted tone, Levi-Setti said, “The design of the trilobite’s eye
could well qualify for a patent disclosure”.9 When such a biconvex lens is found in nature,
13
does not logic demand that intelligent design is a required element in the explanation of its
formation?
Not according to Levi-Setti. He suggested, “What we would like to hear, to appease our
Darwinian upbringing,10 is that new visual structures were evolved in response to new
environmental pressures as a means of survival.”11
As possibilities he suggests that it
“allowed the trilobite to see at some depth in sea, at dusk, or in turbid water.”12 He added the
advantage that they provided a prompter recognition of and response to impending danger. To
this hypothetical mix he adds “mating may have proven more effective with sharper images”.13
(p. 66). Are we expected to take these suggestions seriously?
The earliest trilobites lacked these sophisticated lens described above, but had eyes that
were apparently more like those of modern insects. No intermediate forms, however, are
known from the fossil record. When the Huygens lens is first found in trilobites it was fully
functional.
The regulatory mechanism of the early trilobite eye development must indeed be
complex. An estimated 2500-5000 genes are involved in the developmental process of the insect
eye.14 Some of the details of development are again being worked out in Drosophila where
some of the master switches are known. The individual facet, or ommatidium of a compound
eye such as that in Drosophila, consists of a cluster of eight cells, seven of which will develop
into light receptors. One of these retinal cells, called R7, was found to be responsible for
detecting ultraviolet light (UV). The developmental pathway from an undifferentiated cell to a
sophisticated UV detector cell has been the subject of intensive investigation for a number of
years. It has revealed a cascade of interactions that tell much about the complexity of the
developmental process with which we are concerned. The membranes of the R7 cell contains a
special protein , the Receptor Tyrosine Kinase (RTK). This protein projects through the cell
membrane so that it has active regions inside the cell and on the outside. When a specific
14
activating molecule encounters the portion extending outside the membrane, it adheres to the
external RTK and causes it to join with another molecule of RTK to form a dimer. The internal
part of each RTK molecule then enzymatically attaches three phosphate groups to its partner.
Thus phosphorylated, the RTK binds a second cellular protein, GRB2. When GRB2 is bound to
RTK, it becomes activated and can then bind a third protein, called Sos (Son of sevenless). The
Sos-GRB2-RTK complex can then interact with a critical membrane-bound protein called Ras.
Ras is then freed from the membrane into the cytoplasm, where it binds to and activates an
enzyme called Raf. Activated Raf is able to bind another enzyme, MEK. MEK in turn activates
a terminal cytoplasmic enzyme, MAP Kinase. MAP Kinase is apparently involved in activating
DNA binding proteins and other key cellular proteins that result in changing the direction of
cellular differentiation, so that a cell will now go on to become a normal R7. What is especially
noteworthy about this cascade, is that similar processes are found in cells of all multicellular
eukaryotic organisms, certainly including the trilobite, and with slight differences in the
single cell eukaryotes as well (yeast and protozoa).
Recently as a result of manipulations of a master developmental gene called eyeless, flies
have been induced to form eyes on various parts of the body, including the wings, legs and
tips of the antennae as a result of activating the gene in unnatural locations. A similar master
gene has been found in vertebrates, which have eyes completely different from those of insects.
The developmental gene in humans, mice and other organisms is nearly identical with that in
Drosophila. When the appropriate gene from a mouse chromosome (and presumably the human
gene would work as well) was inserted into a fly, it produced fly eyes wherever it was activated
on the body of the fly! The two genes are similar enough that the mammal gene can cause the
formation of an insect eye. Our line of reasoning leads us to conclude that this same system of
genes leading to development of the eye was present and functioning in the first trilobites.
A rapidly increasing number of developmental pathways are being found across a
broad spectrum of organisms and most of these would have been present in the trilobite. For
15
example, the genes responsible for the organization of the front-to-back axis of the human were
discovered using the genes from Drosophila as molecular probes. The genes responsible for the
organization of the human brain in embryogenesis were discovered, again using the genes from
Drosophila as probes. The eye, the hindbrain and spinal cord, the pathing of axons, the
differentiation of skeletal and heart muscle, the photoperiodic response, the sculpting of tissues
involving select cell death (apoptosis), embryonic patterning, cell signaling, and a host of other
examples of “evolutionarily conserved” processes could be cited. Even the formation of limbs
is directed in fruit flies by a gene (Hedgehog), whose homologous gene in vertebrates (Sonic
Hedgehog) directs the formation of limbs in all known vertebrates, including, human, mouse,
chick and even fish! The elaborate mechanism responsible clearly precedes any known
organism with limbs. All of these processes were doubtless also operative in the trilobite.
Where did all of this information come from?
The Problem of Complexity for One of the First Metazoa
We have given careful consideration to a few brief examples illustrating the complexity
of living eukaryotic cells, nervous systems, developmental processes, and organs already
present in one of the first metazoa, the trilobite. These were drawn from among hundreds of
other examples that could equally well have been used, in order to make the following points:
One of the earliest complex animals of which we have a knowledgeable record, the trilobite,
first appeared in the Lower Cambrian.15 Trilobites are arthropods, in the same alliance as
modern insects. The cells of trilobites divided in a manner similar to every modern eukaryote.
The molecular mechanisms were all in place, all functioning as they do today in insects. The
trilobites had nervous systems as complex as those of modern insects. The synapses in the
nervous systems of trilobites functioned just as the synapses of all modern organisms do. The
complex system of development of cephalized forms was already present and functioning. The
eyes of trilobites manifest all of the complexity and developmental integrity of modern forms.
Their eyes were developed by processes not only similar to those of other arthropods, but like
16
those of vertebrates, including humans.
Space restrictions prevented us from discussing
swimmerets and gills, legs and antennae, and complex, even intricately sculpted forms.
Trilobites and all other forms appear on the scene as fully formed, fully competent organisms.
Period.
The complexities that we have just described, were all present, all fully functional in one
of the first multicellular animals for which we have a record. Where did these complexities come from?
Where and when did evolution take place? This question has been adroitly avoided by
evolutionists. There is no evidence of any earlier form from which they could have been
derived. Furthermore, there is no evidence for the existence of a mechanism in biological
systems for adding information to complex systems.16. To argue that they came from
Precambrian forms that were not preserved because they had no hard parts is to argue from the
absence of evidence. Moreover, fossils with preserved soft parts have in fact been found in the
Cambrian and Upper Precambrian sediments in many localities.17 There is no Precambrian
evolutionary sequence leading up to the trilobite, hence the conclusion that there was no
Precambrian Darwinian evolution of trilobites.
Conclusion
The systems we have just described did not happen by accident. Nor can Darwinian
mechanisms be considered active, causal factors, witness the ineffectual attempt of Levi-Setti to
account for the formation of the trilobite’s double lens with such threadbare evolutionary
explanations. Every step taken by a trilobite is an indictment of the inadequacies of Darwinian
evolutionary theory. This is why, when evolutionary authors such as Stephen J. Gould write
books about the earliest life forms, they carefully skirt the problem of infinitely complex forms
suddenly appearing. Their attitude seem to be: “It’s there, therefore evolution must be able to
do it.”
17
We have seen that from a careful consideration of the evidence, Darwinian mechanisms
do not explain the origin of the information-rich systems of biological organisms. Darwinian
evolution, (as an extension of a naturalistic philosophy, in which there is no role for a Creative
Intelligence), when utilized as an explanation for the existence of complex living systems,
becomes a quasi-religious or philosophical view held by those who wish the world to have no
Designer.
It is past time to replace the theory of Darwinian evolution with one that requires an
explanation for the original wondrous complexity of the trilobite and of many other living
things by reference to intelligent design and an Intelligent Designer. Complex design in the
trilobite is so manifest as to defy contradiction, leaving the unavoidable conclusion that
intelligent design is part of the natural order. This is not an argument from ignorance. Since
purpose is an essential element in design, the purposes of all the features of the trilobite are
readily identifiable. The burden of proof rather lies with those who would claim that the
sudden appearance of the phenomenal complexities and the unbelievably elaborate
biomolecular processes in the early trilobite are the result of wholly naturalistic and
materialistic processes, mediated by natural selection. Let them spell them out, step by step
how these trilobite complexities came into being. While it is true that the authors also believe
that intelligent design originates in the mind of a Supreme Intelligent Designer, the Christian
God, and is actualized as part of God’s purpose for the universe, this belief is not essential to
Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Design is observable, as witness the trilobite, and as
such is amenable to scientific study by believer and unbeliever alike, and requires an
explanation by reference to intelligent design as the underlying causal factor.
End Notes and References
1Radiometric
means the measurement of geologic time by means of the disintegration of radioactive
elements.
2The
rationale for arguing that studies of molecular features of present day animals can tell us about the
molecular features of ancient organisms is supported by Harold J. Morowitz, a biophysicist, who wrote
about the very earliest protocells, “In practice, the outputs of metabolism have a universal as well as a
18
specific character.… Within the universal core of the metabolic chart, we can assume we are recovering
knowledge of 3.7 billion-year-old or older biochemistry…we are studying the biochemistry of the
universal ancestor”. Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1992), (p. 51).
3Levinton,
J. S., G. Wray, and L. Shapiro. 1996. Molecular evidence for a deep Precambrian divergence of
animal phyla. I. Introduction and regression approach. Abstracts with Programs, 28 (7): A-52. Geological
Society of America annual meeting, Denver, CO; Wray, G., J. S. Levinton, and L. Shapiro. 1996. Molecular
evidence for a deep Precambrian divergence of animal phyla. II. Relative rate tests and implications.
Abstracts with Programs, 28 (7): A-52. Geological Society of America annual meeting, Denver, CO; Wray,
G. A., Levinton, J. S. & Shapiro, L. H. 1996, “Molecular evidence for deep pre-Cambrian divergences
among metazoan phyla. “Science, 274, 568-573.
4The
nuclear physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti (Director of the Fermilab at U. Chicago) and trilobite aficiando
has made an indepth study of trilobite eyes, reported in his book, Trilobites, Second Edition, (Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993).
.
55Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), pp. 29-74.
6Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p. 55.
7Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p. 54.
8Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p. 44.
9Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p.57.
10Levi-Setti’s
honesty is admirable. It is not the data that demand an evolutionary explanation, but his
own personal developmental expectations.
11Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p. 59.
12Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p. 59.
13Levi-Setti,
R. (1993.), p. 66.
14Rubin,
G. “Secrets in the Fly Eye,” Discover 17 (7) 110.
basal Cambrian is sometimes loosely defined as the point in the geologic column where the first
trilobites appear.
15The
16Spetner,
L. Not By Chance (New York: Judaica Press, 1997).
17Bengston,
S. and Zhao, Y. “Fossilized Metazoan Embryos from the Earliest Cambrian” Science 277
(September 12, 1997), 1645-48; Xiao, S., Zhang, Y., Knoll, A. H., “Three-dimensional preservation of algae
and animal embryos in Neoproterozoic phosphorite” Nature 391 (February 5, 1998), 553-57; Li, C.-W.,
Chen, J.-Y. “Cambrian Sponges with Cellular Structures” Science 279 (February 6, 1998) 879-882.
Additional References
Boncinelli, E., Simeone, A., La Volpe, A., Faiella, H., Acampora, D., & Scotto, L. 1985. Human cDNA
clones containing homeobox sequences. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol., 50, 301-306.
19
Grotzinger, J. P., S. A. Bowring, B. Z. Saylor, and A. J. Kaufman. 1995. Biostratigraphic and
geochronologic constraints on early animal evolution. Science 270:598-604.