Abundant life: The diversity of life in the biosphere
by
David C. Bossard
IBRI Fellow
Abstract
Abundant Life
The amazing diversity of life began to show up in the fossil record during
the “Cambrian Explosion”, a brief period of intense creative activity about
550 to 600 million years ago. It took place as soon as the earth was able to
support complex, multi-cellular life. This talk takes up the creation story
at that point and considers some of the complex innovations that occurred
then and during the subsequent creation of land-based plants and
animals, innovations that are so focussed that they reveal purposeful
creative activity by God. The great diversity of life in God’s creation
suggests a Principle of Plentitude (recently noted by Michael Denton) to
guide his creative work. The talk includes a number of examples to
illustrate this principle.
Abundant Life talk
1
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Abundant life: The diversity of life in the biosphere
O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there heere!
---William Shakespeare,
The Tempest, Act V Scene 1
[Slide 1] We have a lot to cover today. I hope you don’t leave here totally
bewildered, even though there may be some things you don’t fully
understand. I don’t fully understand everything we will touch on tonight.
There are some times that I feel as if I am at the opening of a great door of
understanding, a door that is only yet open a crack, but even the view
through that small opening hints at wonderful things yet to be seen and
understood.
There are lots and lots of things that we don’t yet know about how God
went about his creative work, but God has designed the natural world in
such a way that his work leaves traces that can be revealed by hard,
honest, scientific study. He did not have to do this, and we should give him
praise and thanks for this revealing design. We will see some remarkable
examples later in the talk.
Despite the amazing advances of science in the past few decades, and
they are truly amazing, there still are far more things that we don’t know
than that we do know. In the course of preparing this talk I read a great
work by Ernst Haeckel, written in the 1880’s.1 As I read it, and noted how
he sometimes passed over details that would in later years be seen as
important, and so was led in some false directions, I was reminded that
where we are today may likewise be seen as incomplete and primitive a
hundred years from now. I know that some Creationists focus on Haeckel’s
errors, but I see him as a great scientist in the true sense of the word. He
was a pioneer charting out a great new wilderness, and did his scientific
work honestly, and with great skill, as far as his available tools would
allow.
Ernst Haeckel, The Radiolarians, 1887. Volume XVIII (2 tomes + atlas of 140 plates) of the Report on the
Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876 (50 volumes published
between 1881 and 1895).
1
Abundant Life talk
2
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
In our remarks about the creation of plants and animals, as Haeckel
did, I may be tempted to make a few speculative comments. I hope you
will not hold it against me if I turn out to be wrong in a thing or two. That
is the nature of science, after all.
[Slide 2] There is a question—I call it the nonsense question—that hangs
around in the back of my mind. The question is this: “What are the limits to
natural development?” I call it “nonsense” in quotes, because a scientist
who believes that everything we see today came about by random
undirected processes, will say, probably with a dismissing air of
superiority, that there are no limits to natural development, other than
limits that are posed by physical and chemical considerations -- for
example, you can’t have humans 20 feet tall for good physical reasons
having to do with the ability to support and supply such a body.
But for me, as one who believes in God’s direct creative activity, but
at the same time understands that there is a lot of natural change that
constantly occurs within species lines, the question is a very real one: I
want to know where in the creation of life, God allowed natural processes
to rule, and where he had to step in. I believe that he did have to step in,
because I believe that there are certain developments that are so complex,
and require such a careful orchestration of events, that natural processes
left to themselves would never come up with the necessary results—
unless, of course, you credit nature with God-like qualities. An example is
the original creation of bacterial life nearly 4 billion years ago, a subject
discussed in my last talk.2
So the question is very intriguing to me: What ARE the limits of
natural development? When God ordered his creatures to reproduce ‘after
their kind’, what are the limits of ‘kind’? Could a single kind produce lions,
tigers and kitties? That is, by legitimately producing “after its kind” by
natural processes? Suppose within this group some remarkable biological
innovations are found? How about hippos and horses? Or cows and
camels?
David C. Bossard, A Fit Place for Life: Creation of the Biosphere, IBRI Research Report #61, 2001, available
at http://www.ibri.org.
2
Abundant Life talk
3
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Just to look ahead a bit, I think that an answer to this nonsense
question will have some real surprises. The reason is simple: the issue of
“kind” is a genetic one, buried in the genes, but the only way that we have
been able to study kinds in the past has been by looking at the physical
appearance, the morphology to use a technical term—that was one of the
limitations that Haeckel faced a century ago, since he worked long before
the modern discoveries in genetics. We have all experienced times when
two things look alike but are entirely unrelated, and we have experienced
the converse, too. Perhaps when we understand the genetics more fully we
will have to rearrange our notions of relatedness—both creationists and
secular scientists.
But enough of that! So that you will be able to get a sense of where
we are heading, here is an outline of the talk. We will first talk about the
Cambrian explosion which is the first time that animals show up in the
fossil record, about 550 to 600 million years ago (the date is in flux, but the
trend is backwards). Next we will give a quick overview of when fossil
land plants and animals show up. Then we will return to the nonsense
question, using the example of radiolarians and trilobites to fuel the
discussion—both have a very long fossil history. Finally we will wrap up
with some conclusions and a mention of Michael Denton’s conjecture
about Abundant Life, which inspired the title of this talk.
In this talk I won’t say much about how we determine the age of
fossils. There are numerous independent and overlapping ways to date
fossils and geologic formations. They tell a consistent story, and I see no
reason to dispute them. If this makes you unhappy, I am sorry, but that is
another talk. In the last talk I discussed radioactive dating, but this is only
one of many ways to date rocks and fossils. Some methods can even
measure the lengths of solar years and lunar months, with the result that it
is known that in the Cambrian age there were about 415 days in a year (the
earth rotated faster then) and a lunar month was about 31.5 days long (the
moon was closer then).
The Cambrian Explosion.
In the last talk, A Fit Place for Life, we discussed the preparation of the
environment for the arrival of plants and animals. This preparation took
Abundant Life talk
4
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
about 3 billion years, bringing earth’s history to about 600 million years
(My) ago, where this talk picks up. The preparation included an oxygen
atmosphere and a broad distribution of available nitrogen and other
organic food that is needed by all advanced life. The only missing piece in
this preparation is protection of dry land from solar and cosmic radiation.
This is done by the ozone layer, which was slowly being built up but
would not be fully in place for another 300 My.
In the last talk, we noted two clear instances of God’s direct creative
activity: first, in the initial creation of bacterial life sometime shortly before
3600 My ago; and second, in the creation of vastly more complex
eukaryotic life about 1800 My ago, that is, single-celled creatures that have
a nucleus along with other complex structural parts—think amoebas and
the slipper-shaped paramecium, for example.
At the point where we begin today, marine life is possible after the
long build-up of the needed nutrients, but only bacteria can survive on dry
land. Starting about 1000 My ago, bacteria are at their task of spreading
nutrients on dry land for the future arrival of plants and animals. Complex
life on dry land is still impossible because of radiation from the sun and
outer space. Bacteria can survive on land because they reproduce rapidly
and their genetic make-up is less vulnerable to random destruction of the
genetic information—and, indeed, damaged bacteria also contribute food
to the survivors.
[Slide 3] The Animal kingdom appears suddenly in the fossil record
shortly after 600 My ago, in what has come to be called the Cambrian
explosion. The boundary that defines the start of the Cambrian age is the
appearance of fossil burrows that were obviously made by a complex
animal, probably an arthropod—the name means “jointed feet”, think
lobster. We will meet trilobites, a kind of arthropod, in a minute.
Abundant Life talk
5
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Trichophycus fossil burrows of the type
that define the start of the Cambrian age3
The beginning of the Cambrian age is currently set at about 590 My ago,
and marks the start of the “Phanerozoic Era”, which means “visible
animals”, ones that are visible to the unaided eye.4
[Slide 4] One of the earliest actual animal fossils is the trilobite, an
arthropod that appears suddenly in the fossil record about 570 My ago.
Early trilobite (early Cambrian)
Lena River Gorge, Siberia
Bergeroniellus spinosus5
from http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/Graphics/Trichophycus.jpg: a
horizontally to obliquely oriented burrow presumed to be produced by a large arthropod
4 The fossil burrows are known as Trichophycus pedum. In 1991 the International Subcommission on
Cambrian Stratigraphy officially set the Cambrian boundary at the first appearance of these fossils. See
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/Stuff/casu8.htm.
5
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/trilobita/bergeroniellus.jpg. from Lena River Gorge,
Siberia, early cambrian. See http://www.ucmp.berkeley.ed/cambrian/aldan.html. Photo by Jere H.
Lipps.
3
Abundant Life talk
6
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
[Slide 5] To give a flavor of what I mean by suddenly, here is a quote from
one author:
“Fossils of trilobites appeared suddenly in the geological record …. If you
are tempted by the word “dramatic” then this is the occasion where you
could be forgiven for weakening. When you visit a rock section spanning
the right bit of the early Cambrian—and there are such profiles in
Newfoundland, Mongolia and Siberia—there will be not a sniff of a
trilobite as you work your way upwards from one bed to its
successor…Then, quite suddenly, a whole Profallotaspis or an Olenellus as
big as a crab will pop out into your waiting hands as you split the rock.
These are trilobites with lots of segments and big eyes: striking things, not
little squitty objects.…You are tempted to cry out: ‘bang!’ And as you
continue to collect a foot or so higher into younger strata, the first trilobite
will be joined by others, maybe half a dozen or so different species, and all
individually distinctive ones at that.”
Richard Fortey, Trilobite!6
[Slide 6] The Cambrian age is the first appearance of animals. To this point
we have been talking about plants and animals as if the meanings of the
terms were obvious. But even biologists still argue about the precise
meaning of the words. I would like to use a definition that will suit our
purposes although it may not satisfy everyone.
For our purposes all plants—Kingdom Plantae— and animals—
Kingdom Animalia— have many cells, reproduce sexually with sperm and
egg, and develop from embryos. This definition eliminates all bacteria and
single-celled creatures, and fungi which make up the Kingdoms of Bacteria,
Protoctista and Fungi (Hence the title of Lynn Margulis’ book Five
Kingdoms). You can immediately guess that the arrival of plants and
animals was a phenomenal jump in complexity, easily comparable to the
jump that occurred with the creation of the first cell with a nucleus.
An outstanding feature that distinguishes animals from plants is in
the basic way that the embryos develop. All living cells have to have a way
to turn particular genes on and off. This is done with proteins that are
6
Richard Fortey, Trilobite! Eyewitness to Evolution, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p.121.
Abundant Life talk
7
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
produced by a group of genes called the homeobox genes. Animals have in
addition to this other genes called the homeotic genes. These are the genes
that orient the body so that development proceeds differently in different
parts of the body, even in different parts of an individual cell, particularly
in the early stages of the embryo. Genes that are both homeobox and
homeotic are called Hox genes. Animals have Hox genes: they turn genes
on and off and also distinguish different regions of gene development. The
Hox genes are responsible for the visible complexity and symmetry
expressed in animals.7
So in animals there is a genetic body plan that distinguishes, in the
general case, front/back, top/bottom and left/right. One of the crazy types
of experimentation done today is to mix this up, and re-arrange where the
various hox genes get expressed. The result is legs where antennas should
be, eyes in armpits, and so on.
You can immediately guess that the emergence of animal body plans
represents a further phenomenal jump in complexity. Consider each of the
great unifying themes of plants and animals:
• the invention of sex – specifically, a new way of cell division called
meiosis to complement mitosis, which is the way bacteria and single-celled
eukariotes divide;
• The embryo and embryonic development, and the creation of the
apparatus involved in forming body plans; and
• The creation of structural and functional systems: roots, stems,
leaves and vascular systems for plants, and for animals the sensory,
nervous, digestive, muscular and other systems.
All told, these require such a remarkable level of innovation that it is
impossible for me to even begin to imagine a random undirected way that
such innovation could come about. The complex orchestration to achieve
these innovations is beyond description. But we must move on.
7
This description of the Hox genes follows Colin Tudge, The Variety of Life, Oxford, 2000, p183.
Abundant Life talk
8
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
[Slide 7] Lynn Margulis divides the Animal Kingdom into 37 phyla,
labeled A-1 to A-37. The phyla are the various body plans, and every one
of them, with a possible quibble about A-37, suddenly appeared in the
Cambrian explosion. About half of the phyla are worms of some sort,
which are, I suppose, of great interest to biologists.
Here are the phyla that are familiar to most of us and that are found
among the Cambrian fossils:
Abundant Life talk
9
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Common Animal Phyla Originating in Cambrian Explosion8
designation
Name
Name Meaning
Examples
A-2
Porifera
porous, spongy
sponges
A-3
Cnidaria
nettle (stinging)
corals, hydras, medusas
A-13
Rotifera
wheel (beating cilia appear
“wheel animacules”
rotating)
A-19
Chelicerata
claw (Arachnida = goddess
scorpions
class Arachnida
Arachne)
spiders
A-20
Mandibulata
chewing jaw
termites, insects
A-21
Crustacea
shelly, crusty
lobsters, crabs
A-22
Annelida
ring (segments)
earthworms
A-26
Mollusca
soft body
clams, octopus
A-30
Brachiopoda
“arm leg” tentacles
lampshells
A-34
Echinodermata
sea urchin skin
starfish
A-37
Craniata
brain
fish, amphibians,
(all modern species are
reptiles, birds,
vertebrates)
mammals
Note: A-19 to A-21 are the Arthropods = “joint-footed”
All of these animal phyla appear suddenly, and for the first time, in
the Cambrian explosion. Some claim that they all show up within a period
of 5 million years, about 545 My ago. I don’t quite agree that the evidence
shows this since we keep finding earlier and earlier examples of animal
fossils (such as the early trilobites already mentioned). But it seems pretty
clear that the animal kingdom for practical purposes, showed up in one
geological instant.
[Slide 8] Here is a collage of some of the Cambrian animals and fossils
from the Burgess Shale Formation in Canada, originally published in
Scientific American. The Burgess Shale is dated to mid-Cambrian, about
445 My ago, and until recently was one of the most intensively studied
sites from the Cambrian era. I think though, that more active current
interest is being directed to sites at Chengjiang in China, and sites in
Mongolia and Greenland which are some 30 My earlier, around 575 My
ago. On the internet you can find illustrated catalogs of Cambrian fossils
for sale—very high priced in my opinion—especially from the China site.
Following the nomenclature of Lynn Margulis et al, Five Kingdoms, 3rd Ec. W.H. Freeman, 1999. This
nomenclature includes all vertebrates as Craniata; some extinct vertebrate species did not have Crania.
8
Abundant Life talk
10
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
The quibble I mentioned is about Pikaia, a possible example of A-37,
Craniata, which appears to have segmented vertebra, but no clear evidence
of a brain as such. Personally I am inclined to place the first appearance of
Craniata a bit later.
The Burgess Shale Fossils in the Mid-Cambrian (about 545 My)9
If you follow the usual arguments of natural Evolution you might
think that the various phyla would appear in the fossil record in roughly
the order of complexity of the body plan. You might expect, for example,
that sponges which have no definite digestive gut and corals or hydras,
which have a relatively simple blind gut would show up before animals
that have a fully developed digestive system. But that is not the case; in fact
the trilobites which have essentially all of the vital systems -- nerves,
sensors, circulation, muscular, and a full digestive system, are among the
earliest to appear in the fossil record. Trilobites show up suddenly, without
any obvious predecessor among the logical body plans that one might
expect to preceed them.
Redrawn from Simon Conway Morris & H.B. Whittington, "The Animals of the Burgess Shale" Scientific
American, 1979. Also in Rich&Fenton The Fossil Book, p 115.
9
Abundant Life talk
11
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
In fact there is no clear order of first appearance in the geological
record, certainly not any order that could be used to imply that one body
plan is the ancestor of another. To a certain extent the accidental nature of
fossil discoveries might explain away some mixing of first arrivals, but it is
hard to explain away the total lack of order.
[Slide 9] Not only do the phyla show up in no clear order, but they show
up with the most complex imaginable body plans. Here is an electron
micrograph of a Cambrian bivalve crustacean — “bivalve” means it has
two differently-shaped shells — folded up under its protective shells.
Many details can be identified including legs, claws, and gills. Shortly we
will see even more extensive detail in trilobite fossils. These elaborate
animals show up suddenly, with no fossil predecessors.
Scanning Electron Micrograph
of an Early Cambrian bivalve Crustacean fossil10
It is probably unnecessary to note that the first animals had only
bacteria and minute organic wastes for food. Even the largest and most
imposing of these animals, the trilobites, only ate such food. At first, they
probably had no natural enemies. So have you noticed a curious thing?
Both the trilobite shown earlier and the crustacean shown here have
significant protective armor surrounding the soft body parts. And this is at
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/cscpic/phosg.jpg SEM micrograph of a hesslandonid
phosphatocopine. Oblique view. D. Walossek, Ulm. From the web page “Life in the Cambrian” at
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/Stuff/casu8.htm.
10
Abundant Life talk
12
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
a time when there were no predators. Clearly the body plan anticipates the
future need for protection. Isn’t that curious! It doesn’t seem to follow the
dictates of natural evolution. Why have armor if there are no predators?
Predators come later. Particularly if the armor itself has some liabilities
(such as restrictions on growth). When predators do show up, the armor
may have some useful function. It would seem that these animals
anticipated a need that was not present when they first appeared. We will
see another striking example of anticipation later in this talk.
Moving to Land.
[Slide 10, left] The Cambrian is the first of a series of geological ages which
record the creation of plants and animals and the migration of life from the
sea to dry land. Here the ages are listed with the present at the top, and the
Cambrian at the bottom.
The geological ages are distinguished by the types of fossils found.
The boundaries between ages are marked by various global events. The
two most dramatic boundary events were mass extinctions: the Permian
extinction about 250 My ago and the Cretaceous or K-T Extinction about 65
My ago. You know the K-T extinction as the time that dinosaurs were
wiped out. This extinction occurred when a huge meteorite hit the earth in
the vicinity of the Yucatan Penninsula at the Western boundary of the Gulf
of Mexico. It is less certain what caused the Permian extinction, possibly
another meteorite impact or possibly earth cooling in a massive ice age.
We will now briefly outline the timeline for the creation of plants and
animals.
Abundant Life talk
13
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
a. Timeline for Land Plants
[Slide 10, right] Moving to land began seriously about 470 My ago, some
100 My after the Cambrian explosion. By this time corals, mollusks, and
other sea creatures were long established. Some early fungi appeared at
about 500 My and mosses about 470 My, both in the Ordovician era. These
all lack real roots, so they can only be small and can only grow in water or
wet surroundings. However, they could move from shorelines to the
interior of land masses, provided the necessary bacteria had preceeded
them to supply food and nitrogen, because they have the ability to go into
a dormant state during dry periods. That ability to survive goes all the way
back to the very first life, the cyanobacteria, over 3 billion years before the
Cambrian age. We mentioned that remarkable ability to survive in a
previous talk.
Abundant Life talk
14
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Cosmic and solar radiation at this time was still severe, but for these
simple plants, that was only an inconvenience, because every plant zapped
by radiation became food for other plants. As long as their reproduction
could keep ahead of the destruction, they were able to cope.
The really serious issue was water, more precisely, the retention of
water in the plants that were exposed to dry land and air. By the start of
the Silurian age, 430 My ago, the algae and mosses appear with waxy coats
that prevent drying out, and from this point they spread all over the dry
land. The waxy coating is characteristic of all land plants from this time on.
Club mosses show up around 420 My ago. They are the first fossils
that have roots and a vascular system to transport dissolved minerals and
water between the roots and the rest of the plant. At the same time, spores,
which protect plant embryos in damp environments, appear. Club mosses
are common and can be easily found in woodland environments at the
base of trees and in other damp places.
It is difficult to over-state the marvelous creative innovations that
these roots, vascula and spores represent. The vascular system, for
example, includes two separate systems called the xylem and phloem, for
transport of food to and from the main body of the plant. Flow depends on
capillary action and control of the concentration of dissolved material in
the cells, so that osmotic pressure will cause water and solutes to move
against gravity (osmotic pressure causes water movement toward cells that
have a higher concentrations of dissolved material). Osmotic pressure also
maintains the shape and rigidity of plants. Another innovation is the
specialization of different parts of the plant for mineral absorption (roots)
and food production.
Ferns appeared next, about 400 My ago. Ferns have large leafs with a
web of veins, an improvement over club mosses. Early fern trees and
conifers appear about 50 My later, early in the Carboniferous era, about
370 My ago.
Up to the mid-Carboniferous era, all the land plants live in swamps
or very wet environments, because they do not have true roots and woody
Abundant Life talk
15
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
stems. This early part is called the Mississippian era. The latter half of the
Carboniferous era, when true roots are created, is called the Pennsylvanian
era. The carboniferous age is the time when many of the great coal deposits
were made. Note that these deposits removed a lot of carbon from the
environment. Note also that there were no large land animals to feed on
the plant life, so that full ecological recycling did not take place.
The next stage was the creation of two things almost simultaneously:
winged insects and true seed plants. These show up in the fossil record at
the end of the Pennsylvanian era, or the start of the Permian age, about 300
My ago. True seed plants are distinguished from spore-bearing plants by
the fact that the seeds have true embryos, food and a hard coating for
protection.
This was the first time that land plants had the ability to spread
throughout dry land, and were no longer tied to swamps or wet areas. This
is also the first time that the ozone layer is completely in place and allowed
plants to survive on dry land by shielding the land from solar and cosmic
radiation. So, in fact, the seed plants, the first true dry land plants, were
created as soon as survival on dry land was possible.
A little later, about 280 My ago, beetles appear in the fossil record.
After all you have to have something to chew at all the plants! We don’t
have time to do it, but the beetles make a great study of the limits of
species variation. As someone said, “God must love beetles, there are so
many of them!”
There was another mass extinction about 255 My ago, called the
Permian extinction, in which 85% of all species of plants and animals die
out. I don’t think the cause of the extinction is fully known, but it seems
likely that it was the result of a large meteor hitting the earth, which might
cause the oceans to evaporate, or cause a dense cloud of debris that would
hide the sun for a period up to several years.
After the Permian extinction, modern plants appear: Modern ferns,
about 255 My (Triassic), fruiting plants about 200 My (Jurassic), and the
most abundant modern plant species, the angiosperms, or flowering
plants, about 170 My ago. With these changes plants could spread to all of
Abundant Life talk
16
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
the dry land. The arrival of the angiosperms is announced in the fossil
records by pollen grains; actual fossils of flowering plants start appearing
about 40 My later, or 130 My ago.
[Slide 11] This is the overall story of the creation of plants. We have left out
the most interesting part: a detailed discussion of all of the marvelous
innovations involved in this creation. Each stage involved ingenious
solutions to very difficult problems.11 Here are some of them:
• How to propagate and survive in extreme conditions.
Solutions: Spores, pollen, seeds.
• How to avoid drying out in the atmosphere?
Solutions:
Cutin (waxy layer on leaves),
Stomata (openings in leaves)
• How to get water and nutrients to plant extremities?
Solutions: roots and vascular system
Note: solution implies a complex control of solutes
and a mechanism for water transport.
• How to support weight in air, maintain rigid form
Solution: root system to anchor in ground;
cellulose for low plants (osmotic pressure);
woody tissue for taller plants.
b. Timeline for Land Animals.
[Slide 12] I would now like to give a quick overview of the creation of land
animals, as I did for land plants.
An interesting summary is found in “The Problems of Becoming terrestrial” p372ff of Patricia and
Thomas Rich, Mildred and Carroll Fenton, The Fossil Book: A Rrecord of Prehistoric Life, Dover, 1996.
11
Abundant Life talk
17
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
We already noted the creation of all of the basic body plans in the
Cambrian era. After the Cambrian a number of great innovations within
the Craniata, Phylum A-37, show up. These are designated A-37.1 through
A-37.8 in the notation of Lynn Margulis. In my view, all or at least many of
these separate classes are distinct Creative acts rather than natural
developments from a common ancestor, mostly because I cannot fathom
how the many innovations involved in the features of these classes would
arise naturally.
After the Cambrian explosion, the first jawless fish show up about
450 My ago, complete with a protected spinal cord and cranium. In my
view this is the first proper evidence of the phylum Craniata, which
includes most of the land animals you are familiar with.
Abundant Life talk
18
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Jawed fish appeared a little later, about 390 My ago, including the
Coelacanth, a “living fossil” that was long thought extinct until it was
fished up in Madagascar in the 1940s. By this time, very elaborate
embryonic developments are well in place, including internal and external
development of the embryos. Note, for example, that coelacanths, among
the earliest examples of jawed bony fish, give live birth. Most fish “are not
that advanced.” They spawn and the embryos develop in water.
In the Devonian age the first big move toward land animals occurs,
about the same time as the first big marine animals. The first land animals
are the amphibians -- think salamanders and later frogs. Amphibians are
tied to water because fertilization and the early development stages take
place in water, much as most fish do.
Winged insects arrive about 340 My. This time marks another step in
the move to dry land, as up to this time, life poked its head out of water
only in swamps and marshes with lots of water nearby. Of course many of
the winged insects still need water or at least moist environments, for the
larval stage.
Reptiles are the first land animals that fertilize internally and give
birth alive or else have fully developed eggs with protective features such
as a hard shell, and an initial food supply to nourish the embryo prior to
birth. They show up about 300 My ago and are the first animals that can
live on dry land without being tied to swamps and bodies of water. Note
again the “coincidence” noted earlier, that they arrive at the first time that
the ozone layer allows complex plant or animal life on dry land.
After the Permian extinction (250 My ago) some of the modern plants
and animals were created. No large animals survived the extinction, but
some large fish such as the sharks and coelacanth, did. Mammals show up
about 220 My ago, and birds show up in the Jurassic, 160 My ago, at about
the same time as the modern flowering plants first appear.
Birds came about only after a number of innovations: feathers, of
course, but also special lungs, heart, bones and other features.
Abundant Life talk
19
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
From this point, the land animals really take off with animals and plants
arriving in great profusion.
This has been a ridiculously fast sweep through the timeline for the
creation of plants and animals. What is missing is a careful discussion of all
of the marvelous innovations that are required at each stage. Even very
minor features display marvelous complexity. Take, for example, the
design of the stingers found in corals and jellyfish: the cnidaria or
“stingers”. It is a marvel of engineering design.
The question of “Kind”: Natural Variation
[Slide 13] I would like to go back to the nonsense question and probe what
the variation within a “kind” might look like. Specifically, I would like to
look at two kinds of life that have very long fossil records. The first
example is radiolarians, which are single-celled creatures, and the second
example is the trilobite. Both creatures show up early in the Cambrian age.
Radiolarians are still abundant today. The trilobites disappear from the
fossil record during the Permian extinction, about 250 My ago.
a. Radiolarians.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
A typical radiolarian12
12
http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf/microangela/mradiolo.jpg.
Abundant Life talk
20
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
[Slide 14] Radiolarians are found in the oceans world-wide. They are a
variety of plankton, which means that they are free-floating. Many
varieties are phosphorescent, and cause the familiar glow in a ship’s wake.
They are distinguished by the fact that they usually have a hard shell that
surrounds the cell nucleus and reproductive processes. The shell typically
has many holes in it through which jelly-like pseudopods project to gather
food.
[Slide 15, 16 ] There are many thousands of varieties of radiolarians. The
biologist Ernst Haeckel, who was a contemporary with Darwin, produced
a 3-volume systematic study of radiolarians in 1887 in connection with the
3-year biological expedition of H.M.S. Challenger, conducted during 18721875. Included in the study are 140 plates that show thousands of different
radiolaria skeletons, a few of which are shown here. After the close of this
talk, I will project all 140 plates so you can get an impression of the scope
of skeletal shapes.
[Slide 17] In his report, Haeckel remarked:
The skeleton of the Radiolaria is developed in such exceedingly manifold
and various shapes, and exhibits at the same time such wonderful
regularity and delicacy in its adjustments, that in both these respects the
present group of Protista excels all other classes of the organic world. For,
in spite of the fact that the Radiolarian organism always remains merely a
single cell, it shows the potentiality of the highest complexity to which the
process of skeleton formation can be brought by a single cell.”
Ernst Haeckel, Challenger Report on Radiolaria13
When I contemplate the many radiolarian skeletal shapes, I am
naturally drawn because of my mathematical background, to ask whether
random and cumulative genetic changes might explain the great variety.
[Slide 18] Perhaps the most familiar analogy is to snow crystals, which I
assume that most of us are familiar with. Snow crystals are the result of
Ernst Haeckel, Zoology, Vol XVIII Report on the Radiolaria collected by H.M.S. Challenger, 1887, in Report
on the Scientific results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876.
13
Abundant Life talk
21
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
random microscopic variations in the “seeds” that grow the crystals. The
apparent complexity is the result of relatively simple physical laws of
crystal growth. I suppose someone could claim that God directly created
each crystal, but it seems more reasonable, and quite adequate to assume
that they grow naturally.
Snow Crystals14
[Slides 19] Another possible analogy is fractal design. Fractals are patterns
that result from the repeated application of some very simple design rules
with random variation added. Fractal designs have infinite variety, but at
the same time have a recognizable overall appearance. The shapes that
characterize varieties of trees and leaves can be duplicated using fractals.
Every fern frond or maple leaf is different, but they have a characteristic
underlying fractal design that can be described in a few lines of computer
code.
[Slides 20] Many of the background landscapes in computer games are
designed using fractals, and can be quite realistic. Here is a fractal arctic
scene, with fractal clouds, icebergs and waves. I have also seen fractal
mountain ranges and moonscapes.
14
from http://www.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/~frkw/english/
Abundant Life talk
22
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
I conjecture that radiolarian skeletons arise by some similar random
processes acting on the genetic code over time, although I confess that I do
not know exactly what the underlying natural laws are. I do not see the
need to invoke supernatural intervention to account for the huge variation.
All the variation appears to be centered around a central basic body plan.15
The geometrical variations in the radiolaria are the working out of
geometrical laws of design—like the snow crystals and fractals, but richer
in the underlying “algorithms”.
b. Trilobites.
[Slide 21] Now let’s carry the question of the scope of kinds to a higher
level, to the highly complex, but also quite varied, trilobites. The story of
the trilobites is so amazing that I am convinced that they are an example of
God’s providential grace in providing us with a case history to study the
issues of creation and natural development.
Trilobites first appear as a fully developed complex form about 570
My ago. They have no plausible fossil ancestor. They are among the
earliest hard-bodied fossils to appear and they vanish from the fossil
record at the time of the Permian extinction, more than 300 My later.
Let us talk first about the basic body plan. Throughout the entire
history of trilobites this basic plan was constant. It is the earliest fossil that
has fully developed eyes. But that is only part of the amazing features of
this creature. A trilobite has a hard exoskeleton. The name comes from the
fact that the main body, the thorax, has a number of three-part segments.
The soft parts are protected in an articulated shell, which is like armor
plate that flexes between the segments (unlike a turtle shell, for example).
Each segment has a pair of jointed legs, and gills tucked between the legs
and the plate. The animal may (not all do) have segmented antennas and
compound eyes in the head. We will say more about the eyes shortly.
D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson On Growth and Form, Revised ed. Dover 1992, has an extensive
discussion of the geometric origins of the radiolarian skeletons (p.694-731).
15
Abundant Life talk
23
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Cambrian Trilobite age about 540 My16
[Slide 22] The internal features include a full digestive system, a
respiratory system with gills, a circulatory system with a heart, muscles, a
nervous system with a brain, nerve cord and ganglia and various sensor
systems, most notably including compound eyes. And all of this appears
suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed.
Trilobite body parts17
16
17
Paradoxides gracilis Jinetz, Bohemia. approx. 4.5" long. Plate I, Levi-Setti Trilobites
From Trilobite Internal Anatomy at http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/trilointernal.htm
Abundant Life talk
24
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
[Slide 23] You might well ask, how do we know the internal structure of
the trilobite, since we only have fossils to go on and the internal anatomy is
all soft-body parts? The answer is, in my view, another example of God’s
gracious providence:
Some trilobites discovered near Rome, New York have had the hard and
soft-body parts replaced by finely crystaline pyrite (FeS2). They display
finely detailed external appendages and gills. X-rays reveal fine details of
muscular, digestive, circulatory, visual systems. As a result of this
providential gift, much is known about trilobite anatomy despite the fact
that they have been extinct for 250 million years.
Rolf Ludvigsen, Fossils of Ontario18
Pyrite is known as “fool’s gold” because of its golden color. The softbody parts of these pyratized fossils show up in xrays of the fossils. This
discovery of pyratized fossils offers an extraordinary opportunity to learn
about the trilobite anatomy. The author calls it “providential.” I agree.
There is no room whatever to postulate a gradual, evolutionary
development of the trilobite body plan. It just is there, right from the start
of the animal fossil record.
[Slide 24] Trilobites persisted for over 300 My. Most of them were bottom
feeders, although a few varieties appear from their streamlined form to
have been swimmers. During this time, trilobites assume a fantastic array
of body shapes and features, and come in sizes ranging from thousandths
of an inch to tens of inches. An amazing range of body features appear to
come and go over this 300 My span. Here are some examples from various
geological ages.
18
Rolf Ludvigsen, Fossils of Ontario Part 1: the Trilobites, Royal Ontario Museum, 1979, p22.
Abundant Life talk
25
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Ordovician Trilobite
Ordovician Trilobite with stalk eyes
Abundant Life talk
26
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Ordovician Trilobite
Silurian trilobite19
Arctinurus occidentalis Hall Silurian Rochester Shale Lockport NY. Plate 45 Levi-Setti Trilobites. Photo
by author. Pyritized fossil?
19
Abundant Life talk
27
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Devonian Trilobite.
Note articulation
[slide 25] The Trilobite Eye. The trilobite eye provides a marvelous
example of the kind of change that can be seen over this long Fossil
record.20
First I should note that the trilobite eye is unique in the animal kingdom.
Instead of being made of soft protein, as in the case of all other species, the
trilobite has compound eyes of precisely oriented clear crystals of silica.
The focus is fixed and cannot be changed, unlike the human eye which can
vary the focus with eye muscles—except I must ruefully note, when you
grow old and the ability to focus begins to fail.
There are two fundamentally different types of trilobite eyes.
a. The Holochroal (= “whole skin”) eye
Most trilobites—all of the early trilobites— had an eye made up of
many hexagonal cones of clear silicon that directed light down the axis to
Much of the information here is from S.M. Gon III, The Trilobite Eye which is located at
http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/eyes.htm. The images of the eye types are from this web site unless
otherwise noted.
20
Abundant Life talk
28
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
an optic receptor. Compound eyes are compact hexagonal prisms packed
tightly in an arc or bulbous fashion and each cone in the compound eye
could see directly along the cone axis. Thus the compound eye could see
over a range of directions limited by the number and orientation of the
cones. In some species the eyes were on stalks so that they could aim the
cones to see over a range of directions. A compound eye may have as few
as 30 or as many as 15,000 separate prisms.
The Holochroal eye, consisting of packed
hexagonal cones of silica crystal
b. The Schizochroal (= “split skin”) eye
One group of trilobites, the Phacops, which appear late, in the
Devonian era, had a very different kind of eye lens, called the schizochroal
lens, consisting of a small roundish compound lens rather than a longish
prism lens. The upper part of the compound lens was silica, but the lower
part was another material with slightly different optical properties
(possibly protein). The purpose of this compound lens was to focus the
light into a concentrated spot much as modern compound microscopic
lenses do. The two lens pieces with different indices of refraction joined to
correct for spherical abberation, an annoying effect that is corrected by
modern compound lenses. Each lens assembly is separated from its
neighbors by an opaque wall to prevent scattering of light.
Abundant Life talk
29
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
[Slide 26] There were two designs of these schizochroal lenses. One design
used a spherically-shaped upper surface and the other design used an oval
upper surface. Remarkably, work by Rene Descartes and Christopher
Huygens in the 1600’s solved the spherical abberation problem in exactly
the same way as the Phacops trilobite did 300 My before.21
The Schizochroal eye, consisting of
spherical simple or compound lenses of silica crystal.
Descartes’ lens (left) and trilobite Crozonaspis (right)
with a spherical lens surface.
Light rays coming from the left meet at a focus.
This was first reported in 1975 in Euan N.K. Clarkson, Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobite eyes and the optics of
Des Cartes and Huygens, Nature, 254 (April 24, 1975), 663-667. The diagrams and discussion here are
redrawn from that article and appear in S.M. Gon III, op. cit.
21
Abundant Life talk
30
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Huygens’ lens (left) and trilobite Dalmanitina (right)
with an oval (elliptical) surface.
Light rays coming from the left meet at a focus.
Devonian Phacops with Schizochroal eyes22
[Slide 27] One obvious question is, how did trilobites come up with the
two major versions of the crystalline eye, and what kinds of genetic change
were required to do this?
At first, the exquisite optimal design of the Schizochroal eye might
incline a person to believe that it is a great example of direct fiat creation by
22
Plate 201 Levi-Setti photo by author. Devonian Phacops megalomanicus (Struve), Alnif Morocco
Abundant Life talk
31
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
God. But the surprising answer, surprising to me at least, is that the eye
probably came about by natural, random changes in the eye design.
The secret is this: both kinds of trilobite eye were present in the
genetic code all the time, from the very first. All trilobite eyes begin in the
embryonic stage as a more-or-less spherical shape, which grows into the
prismatic crystals as the trilobite matures. So it appears that in Phacops,
this embryonic lens persists through adulthood, whereas in all other
species the embryonic lens grows into the holochroal prism lens.
This arresting of normal embryonic development is called
paedomorphosis, the retention of embryonic or juvenile features. I first
encountered paedomorphosis as an explanation of the difference between
human skulls and the skulls of other primates: the human skulls represent
an earlier stage of maturation, so in effect the human skull retains some
juvenile features. I must admit when I first heard this, I was not favorably
impressed.
But when you apply the insight to trilobites, it turns into a marvelous
demonstration of how the original genetic code for the trilobites anticipates
an eye development that occurred hundreds of million years later. This is a
second example of genetic anticipation, adding to the armor of trilobites
and crustaceans which existed before they needed it.
Even the early geologists, as they began to systematically study the
fossil record, noted this anticipation. Sir Charles Lyell, one of the great
geologists of the mid-1800’s remarked:
"We must suppose that when the Author of Nature creates an animal
or plant, all the possible circumstances in which its descendants are
destined to live are foreseen, and that an organization is conferred
upon it which will enable the species to perpetuate itself and survive
under all the varying circumstances to which it must be inevitably
exposed."23
23
Sir Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, 8th Edition, 1850, p560.
Abundant Life talk
32
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
I believe that even though it seems to be evidence of careful
engineering design, the remarkable focussing ability of the schizochroal
eye is probably the result of natural development. I say this only because I
think I could build a computer simulation that would come up with a
focussed eye with a lens much like the Phacops eye. The random changes
would be in the developmental genes: changing the speed of maturation of
the eye, for example. The environmental payoff function would be the
ability to focus and concentrate the light, and thus be able to see effectively
in low light situations (such as moderately deep water). This would have a
direct survival value, because it would directly increase the grazing range
for the bottom-feeding trilobites with the phacops eye, compared with
trilobites that could not focus as well.
I have not actually written such a program, but based on my
background with such simulations, I am confident that I could do so. The
result would be a demonstration that natural random changes could
produce an optimally focussing eye.
But note what I am saying. I would start with all the necessary genes
to produce the crystals; I am not making up novel kinds of genes, only
slowing up or speeding up the rate of development. Everything is already
there in the toolbox.
Significance of the Trilobite Fossil Record.
I went into this extended discussion of trilobites to make some points
about what the fossil record says about the creation process. I think a few
points are worth noting.
First, note that the complex body plan, including sexual
reproduction, a full gut, circulatory system, nervous system, muscular
system, fully developed eyes, and possible other sensor systems arose in
complete form right at the start of the fossil record. The body plan appears
to have almost every feature of the most advanced species, except for a
spinal cord.
It seems particularly interesting that the eye, which must be one of
the most complex of the sensor developments, appears right from the first.
Abundant Life talk
33
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
If the remarks about paedomorphosis are accurate, then it would
seem that all of the genetic code to cover all of the variations of the
trilobites may well have been present from the very first. This is in essence
to say that God created the genetic code for the trilobites and then natural
processes produced the variations. Of course this is not to say that God
could not have intervened at any number of points, but it may be possible
to show that the changes over time were already provided for in the first
species that appeared.
But—and here is where I depart from evolutionists—I do not think that the
genetic code needed for the eye’s very existence can by any means be had
without an intelligent designer. On the contrary, I believe that the genetic
code for the trilobite from the very first included the machinery to produce
all of the eye variation that is found in the entire fossil record of trilobites.
Abundant Life
[Slide 28] The problems solved by plants and animals are not just solved in
one or a few adequate ways, but in a multitude of ways, and often with
great cleverness and ingenuity. In so many ways that some have suggested
that nature displays every possible solution and every variation of the
solution to these problems.
Before Darwin came on the scene, it was commonly understood as a
point of theology that God created all possible forms of life. That was part
of God’s Glory displayed in nature. The French biologist Georges Cuvier
argued in the early 1800’s that nature shows “all combinations that are not
incoherent,” a form of a long existing “doctrine of plentitude.” Of course
since Darwin, such an explanation has fallen into disfavor, but it has
recently been re-asserted by Michael Denton, in his marvelous book
Nature’s Destiny in which he devotes a fascinating chapter to just this point.
He gives many example: all possible body forms, all possible eyes, all
possible organism sizes, all possible methods to achieve respiration,
circulation, and movement. I urge everyone here to get hold of that book
and read at least that one chapter.
Abundant Life talk
34
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
Regarding the example of “all possible eyes” Denton wrote “it
appears that every possibility has been realized in the design of imageforming optical devices.” He follows this up with a chapter on the eye of
the Lobster. We have already seen some of the variation in our discussion
of trilobite eyes. In addition there are examples of:
• Amorphous (hard, soft) and crystalline lenses
• Simple and compound eyes (multiple lenses)
• Focusing and non-focusing
• Reflective and refractive lenses
• Simple and compound lenses with multiple refractive indices
• Image formation by focussing and by scanning
• A myriad of non-image forming light sensors
• Sensitivity to various parts of the light spectrum
• Passive and active (light generating) eyes
It does not seem to be an exaggeration to say, with Denton, that every sort
of engineering solution to the problem of vision can be found in nature.
Think of any detail of biology and you will find a comprehensive array of
solutions distributed among the various species of life. These solutions are
not only found in the so-called “higher” plants and animals; even the most
humble species solve their life problems in exceedingly ingenious ways.
We briefly mentioned the stingers of the Cnidaria—the phylum of
“stingers”. You could spend a lifetime marvelling at the many clever
engineering solutions to just that one problem.
Conclusions
[Slide 29] I hope that this brief talk has given you some notion of the great
and marvelous story of God’s creation of plants and animals that he has
placed in the fossil record.
The story is one of a creation that prepares the environment and then
fills it with plants and animals that are suitable for the environment that he
has prepared.
Abundant Life talk
35
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
The story of populating the dry land with plants and animals shows
a gradual move to dry land that began in water, then moved to swamps
and shorelines, and finally moved inland to dry land—preparing the food
and the species for each step.
This orderly plan does not prove random undirected evolution any
more than the orderly plan for any large construction project proves that
there were no blueprints.
But God did not just leave us with this orderly record, he also gives
fossil evidence that the most complex body plans arose suddenly in the
record without logical precursors or an orderly progression of complexity.
This is what one would expect from a Creator, but is not what one would
expect from random undirected evolution.
In God’s creation of body plans, there is evidence that the plans
anticipated future needs or developments that were not present when they
first show up in the fossil record. Examples are armor when there were no
predators, and provision for the trilobite’s compound lens eye.
[Slide 30] With an adequate gene pool, natural change can produce an
astonishing range of body shapes and features. Examples that we have
seen include the radiolarian skeletons and the trilobite eyes. Of course,
many other examples could be cited, which has led Michael Denton and
others to assert that plants and animals uses “every” way to solve the
problems of life.
Finally, although we did not dwell on the point, the fossil and
geological history illustrates the fact that a stable ecosystem of plants and
animals requires that all byproducts of life must be recycled, or the system
breaks down eventually. We could point out examples in the carbon
deposits of the Carboniferous age, in which carbon was not effectively
recycled into the ecosystem, and the age of dinosaurs, in which huge
animals dominated the land.
Finally, I hope that you agree that the “Nonsense Question” is a
reasonable thing to ask, and that seeking to answer it will provide much
insight into how creation occurs. From what I can determine, there
Abundant Life talk
36
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM
remains a lot of work to do to answer it. I believe that the answer can be
found by a careful examination of God’s fossil record of his creative
activity and a deep understanding of genetics and embryonic
development.
I believe that God intends us to find the answers, and that it is for us
to do the hard, honest, scientific work to get them.
Thank you.
David C. Bossard
November, 2001
Abundant Life talk
37
February 17, 2016 10:21 AM