Creationist Theory on Ascending Complexity of Life Ordered in Precambrian/lower Cambrian Sediments

In my opinion, one of the most challenging arenas of science for a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is geology. Both sides of the debate have the same data to work with- the geologic column. Likewise, they share the same goal- reconstructing a plausible theory to explain the earth’s history. The very deepest layers in this geological column, the Precambrian and lower Cambrian, pose quite a mystery for us to solve since they contain the very first signs of life.

Of particular interest within these lowest levels, is the presence of a clear order of organisms increasing in complexity along the vertically ascending layers of sediment. The questions are: how do we explain the method by which these layers came to be deposited historically and what is the significance of the increasing complexity in the fossil record? Creationists and Evolutionists have two vastly different answers largely due to the presuppositions underlying their respective world views. These presuppositions unavoidably affect interpretation.

Evolutionary theory sees the layers as being deposited over millions of years, containing the record of the evolution of life from simple to complex. This view traditionally enjoys the “edge” in modern thought for two reasons. First, it’s the only view most people are aware of since it is the only one approved in public education systems; and second, it is certainly a simple/obvious explanation if one agrees with evolutionary presuppositions.

YEC theory sees the deposition of these deepest layers as the result of one catastrophic event- the global flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6-9 which devastated the entire earth. Since YEC’s maintain that life didn’t evolve, but came into existence simultaneously according to the Biblical 6 day Creation narrative, the difficulty has been arriving at an explanation of the increasing complexity demonstrated in the fossil record. However, Dr. Kurt Wise (Ph.D. in Paleontology and M.A in Geology from Harvard) described a theory during his presentation at the 2017 “Is Genesis History?” Conference proving that the evolutionary reconstruction is not the only one data supports. Wise admits that “Creationist palaeontology is an immature field” and that theirresources… are severely limited.” However, Wise believes his theory is the one aligning most closely with the evidence.

Shared Evidence

Early in Dr. Wise’s presentation, he sets the stage by documenting the data both evolutionists and creationists have to interpret:

At the base of the geologic column, the lowest level is referred to as the “Precambrian.”

                                                  Image via Wikimedia Commons

Dr. Wise notes that there are only 12 geographical locations where geologists can access the complete Precambrian series of sediments exhibiting the order of increasing complexity (stratomorphic series). In fact, he explains, it has only been within approximately the last 30 years that these rocks have been recognized as what they are- Precambrian sediments that did not erode away. Within this series, there is a clear and consistent sequence of sediments containing organisms increasing in complexity beginning with simple bacteria. This same order of increasing complexity in the fossil record is observed throughout the geological column. For example, the order is present even throughout the Great Unconformity (which exists on almost all continents) despite the fact that some of the layers present in the Precambrian series of sediments are missing altogether.

Dr. Wise supplies the following examples of this ascending complexity. In the deepest layer of sediment, the only fossils present are bacteria or bacteria related. Rising up into younger sediments, in addition to the bacteria, you begin to find single celled algae. Continuing upward, protists appear (single celled, non-photosynthetic organisms- not an animal, plant, or fungus). Next, appear a group called “Ediacaran Fauna” which are large (1-2′), flat macrofossils (fossils observable with the naked eye).

Photo: Dickinsonia, by Ilya Bobrovskiy, Australian National University (fair use for scientific and educational purposes), via SBS News.

Following this group is “Tommotian Fauna” (or “small shelly fauna”) which are small (around 1 inch at most) cone-shaped fossils.

Tommotian Fauna image via

Next, come the “Atdabanian Fauna.” This is the lowest level in which Trilobites are found.

Plate from Barrande’s work Système silurien du centre de la Bohême via Wikipedia

Evolutionist Interpretation of the Data

Traditional evolutionary theory presupposes both uniformitarianism and naturalism. The former can be defined as the “concept that ‘the present is the key to the past’ (that events occur at the same rate now as they have always done)…Today, Earth’s history is considered to have been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events.” Therefore, each layer of sediment in the geologic column (some of which are tens of thousands of feet thick) represents millions of years of history. This “deep time” is crucial to support the latter presupposition which can be summarized as the “idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.” Barring the possibility of a Creator God existing outside of His Creation, evolutionists conclude that the ascending complexity of organisms can only be explained by slow evolutionary processes requiring millions of years.

No one would disagree that given the presuppositions above, these conclusions are reasonable. Wise notes an additional factor supporting evolutionary theory while being problematic for YEC. Essentially, if the lowest levels of sediment can preserve bacteria, it should be able to preserve more complex organisms if they existed simultaneously. The simplest and most logical deduction is that only bacteria are preserved because they were the only thing in existence. This is the problem Wise’s theory addresses.

At this juncture it must be noted that the assumption of uniformitarianism underlying evolutionary theory is not scientifically provable. As influential 20th century paleontologist G.G Simpson famously stated, “Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—such a rational interpretation.” This is imperative due to modern day rhetoric claiming that creation science is “pseudoscience.” The entire foundation of evolutionary theory is underscored by an “unprovable postulate” rendering its resulting conclusions no more or less scientific than the conclusions of creation science.

YEC Interpretation of the Data

YEC’s operate under their own set of presuppositions. While agreeing that relatively recent geological history can be reconstructed with the assumption of the slow, gradual processes that we witness today, they reject that uniformitarianism can be projected infinitely backward in antiquity to arrive at an accurate historical reconstruction of earth’s ancient history due to the global Flood. YEC’s also presuppose a Creator who created life supernaturally as described in Scripture rather than via naturalistic means. Wise submits that the evidence indicates that “the uppermost Precambrian are the very beginning of the Flood deposits and they are preserving a Pre-Flood ecological sequence of some sort.”

Interestingly, this alternative interpretation of the data wasn’t arrived at by a group of YEC scientists. Instead, the theory that follows was developed during the course of a Harvard University graduate class under renowned paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Gould, studying the Cambrian explosion. Although Wise doesn’t reveal if any of the other class participants besides himself were YEC’s, he does note that the conclusions being drawn were (understandably) disconcerting to the evolutionists working on the project.

It all began when the group made an interesting observation: within the stratomorphic series,

each type of fauna is specific to a particular type of rock. For example: the Ediacaran Fauna is almost always found in sand; the Tommotian Fauna is always in carbonates; and the Atdabanian Fauna is always in shale. Therefore, the faunal sequence is dependent on the type of rock (facies dependant).

The group recognized this phenomenon to be in keeping with “Walther’s Law” which Wise summarizes as, “a principle in geology stating that if you have a series of lithosomes (types of rock) stacked vertically in a particular order, it could be that the order is due to a transgression event or a regression event, where the first thing is formed in shallow water, the next thing is formed in deeper water, and the next thing is formed in even deeper water. It could be that what you see vertically, is what the world was like horizontally at the time of deposition… So, you’re not actually looking at three different aged things. You’re looking at three different things at different positions.”

“Stratigraphic column on the north shore of Isfjord in Svalbard Norway. The vertical succession of rock types (representing sedimentary facies) reflects lateral changes in paleoenvironment.” via Wikipedia

Wise clarifies with the following scenario: you have sand at the shore, mud off shore, and reefs out beyond that. This would result in layers of sandstone, mud shale, then carbonate. So, if you see a sequence of sandstone/shale/carbonate in a vertical sequence, you could conclude that rather than life evolving into greater complexity over millions of years, you merely have three separate facies existing side by side that became buried on top of each other because water came in over the land. Therefore, these three faunas may not be separated in time, but are separated horizontally. Three different fauna, living at the same time, getting buried in a sequence only because water is either coming in or going out. Subsequently, the shallow water organisms are buried on bottom, followed by those inhabiting medium depth water, followed by deep water organisms.

This essentially reveals that millions of years of time is not a necessary factor in the formation of these 12 areas in which geologists have a clear cross-section of the Precambrian.

Adding Radiometric Dating into the Mix

It is beyond the scope of this article to address the numerous and very valid problems with the accuracy of ages of rocks assigned by radiometric dating. Interested readers can refer to Dr. Andrew Snelling’s treatment of that topic in his article Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions. To greatly simplify, I will merely state that the science behind the dating models is sound. However, the scientifically unprovable assumptions plugged in as constants in the equations render the results unrealiable at best and completely invalid at worst.

For our purposes, the only relevant issue is the range of time that these radiometric dating models indicate regarding the successive layers of rock which cumulatively result in the millions of years evolutionists assign to the geologic column in the form of the geologic time scale. When it comes to these ancient date ranges assigned to each layer of sediment, Wise explains that the smallest increment of measurement is the “radiometric pixel” which is a unit of 5 million years. Essentially, this means that radiometric dating methods employed in this context cannot discern periods of time between sediments in increments less than 5 million years.

This becomes of paramount importance when Wise notes that the graduate team examining the radiometric dating data pertaining to these layers of sediment discovered that the evidence revealed the time period separating these layers was not, in fact, hundreds of millions of years, but something less than a radiometric pixel! Here, Wise points out, that when you are at the Cambrian level (dated by the evolutionary time scale to be 5 million years ago), 5 million years is 1%- you can’t see anything less than 1%. Foundationally, you can’t distinguish the different age of things less than 1% apart.

How do these facts alter the interpretation of the data? Wise states, “The radiometric data suggests that there is less than a radiometric pixel between these three faunas. Add that to the facies issues of the faunas and we concluded these faunas don’t represent successive faunas, they represent three faunas at the same time. Buried in that order, but not living in that order.”

Wise continues by explaining that this finding is magnified when one realizes that whatever process has buried these fauna in this same pattern, it is represented identically in 12 different geographical locations all over the earth! So, the next step becomes figuring out how closely the age of these 12 different deposits can be determined. Wise says, “Again, we concluded that we cannot discern differences in their age at the level of the radiometric pixel. So, they could all be at exactly the same moment in time, and that the same event, a global event, buried them in the same sequence for that reason.” Therefore, the data contained in the Precambrian and lower Cambrian layers can very well be interpreted in support of the Genesis global flood event, documenting life existing simultaneously, and ordered in horizontal proximity to one another.


At the end of the day, evolutionists will never consider the YEC theory to be valid. Not because the data contained in the Precambrian and lower Cambrian sediments preclude it, but because it violates the two foundational presuppositions of uniformitarianism and naturalism- neither of which are scientifically provable.



Orphan Genes Part 3: De Novo Gene Origination- What are the Odds?

In Part 1 of this series we discussed the discovery of orphan genes and in Part 2 we tracked evolutionist response: initial rejection of their possible existence transitioning into reluctant acceptance due to repeated undeniable confirmation. Since evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true, this acceptance necessitated a response regarding proposed naturalistic methods for the origination of these genes which evolution requires to emerge “de novo” (or “from scratch”) into the genome. The plausibility of these propositions will be the focus of the final installment of this topic.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

It’s not as if the methods by which genetic diversity manifest in the genome had never been considered. The reluctance of evolutionary science to embrace the existence of orphan genes is completely understandable given the historical conclusions drawn regarding de novo gene origination. A giant in his field (Head of the Dept. of Cell Genetics at Institut Pasteur in 1960 and 1965 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine winner), Francois Jacob, emphatically denounced de novo gene origination in his 1977 work Evolution and Tinkering:

Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one.” He continued, “The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero. In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago, creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information.” (emphasis mine)

Francois Jacob (via Wikipedia)

A Second Look at the Junk Pile

Confronted with new facts, evolutionists turned to re-examine what they had previously considered a DNA garbage heap. The majority of DNA (99%) is non-coding, meaning that it doesn’t provide instructions for making proteins. As this NIH article explains:

Scientists once thought noncoding DNA was ‘junk,’ with no known purpose. However, it is becoming clear that at least some of it is integral to the function of cells, particularly the control of gene activity. For example, noncoding DNA contains sequences that act as regulatory elements, determining when and where genes are turned on and off. Such elements provide sites for specialized proteins (called transcription factors) to attach (bind) and either activate or repress the process by which the information from genes is turned into proteins (transcription).”

According to the same source, types of regulatory elements found in junk DNA include promoters, enhancers, silencers, and insulators. Since the revelation that this junk DNA is not actually useless is fairly recent, it’s not surprising that “the identity of regulatory elements and other functional regions of noncoding DNA is not completely understood.”

Proposed Models

How could this “junk” DNA give rise to de novo origination of genes? This McLysaght/Guerzoni study concludes:

We may thus imagine two scenarios: one where an arbitrary ORF appears in a locus of significant transcription (‘RNA first’) and one where a cryptic, arbitrary ORF experiences some low, perhaps sporadic, transcription (‘ORF first’).”

The authors go on to state, “Either way, evolutionary tinkering with this pool of genetic potential may have been a significant player in the origins of lineage-specific traits and adaptations.”

Of course, these conceptual models derive from what Dr. Kevin Anderson (writing for AIG) terms “historical reconstructions” which by their very nature “are only as good as the assumptions of the reconstruction.” In this case the assumption is evolution via mutation. No other possibility is considered.

Emily Singer writes in her article for Quanta, “The junk DNA must accumulate mutations that allow it to be read by the cell or converted into RNA, as well as regulatory components that signify when and where the gene should be active. And like a sentence, the gene must have a beginning and an end…In addition, the RNA or protein produced by the gene must be useful.”

What are the Odds?

Possibility is one thing. Plausibility is entirely another. On the likelihood of such a scenario occurring Singer notes, “…creating a gene from a random DNA sequence appears as likely as dumping a jar of Scrabble tiles onto the floor and expecting the letters to spell out a coherent sentence.”

If these are the odds of even one gene emerging de novo from junk DNA, what then must be the odds of such an event taking place over and over in every living species? Furthermore, trends indicate that scientists may merely have uncovered the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the number of de novo genes. Singer writes, “As scientists…are implementing new gene discovery technologies…the number of de novo genes might explode.”

More Problems…

Statistical improbability isn’t the only issue with de novo gene origination via mutation. Dr. Anderson writes, “If it takes at least seven mutations to transform a functional gene into a different gene, then it would require far more mutations to truly evolve a de novo gene…the more mutations required, the greater the potential that some will be harmful. Evolutionists recognize this issue as well. Joanna Masel, a University of Arizona biologist studying how evolution might avoid this pitfall, explains: “Proteins have a strong tendency to misfold and cause havoc. It’s hard to see how to get a new protein out of random sequence when you expect random sequences to cause so much trouble.”

Closely related to the issue of mutations is the amount of time it would take these mutations to result in the de novo emergence of a gene. Dr. Anderson writes, “…the time needed to transform a functional gene into a different gene bursts the evolutionary timescale. The de novo formation of new genes takes this problem to even greater magnitudes. Humans, for example, are supposed to have evolved from a primate ancestor in just 4–6 million years. Even by the most generous calculations, this is insufficient time for the de novo construction of the hundreds of human orphan genes.”

De novo gene origination is just one piece of the puzzle. Singer poses the next, equally confounding question: “how de novo genes get incorporated into the complex network of reactions that drive the cell.” And that’s not the only concern, “Evidence suggests that a portion of de novo genes quickly become essential. About 20 percent of new genes in fruit flies appear to be required for survival.” She continues, “It’s as if a bicycle spontaneously grew a new part and rapidly incorporated it into its machinery, even though the bike was working fine without it.”


Evolutionists routinely disparage creation science by labeling it pseudoscience and calling foul based on Biblical bias. However, the case of orphan genes is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of such a claim. Secular science operates under its own bias- faith in evolution. Dr. Anderson aptly describes the evolutionist view of de novo gene origination, “This conclusion is not based on observational data, but rather on evolutionary necessity. The presumption of evolution is so prevalent in biology that it trumps everything else, even if it means depending upon events with a ‘practically zero’ chance of occurring.”

While orphan genes are definitely a wrench in evolutionary theory, Dr. Anderson notes that orphan genes fit “within a biblical creation model, where humans, animals, plants were created with a fully functional genome. Since this initial creation, subsequent changes in the genome have introduced many mutations and other alterations to the DNA. Some of these have even provided a specific (and likely limited) adaptive benefit. Yet these benefits result from degenerative mutations, not the formation of new genes.”

Orphan Genes Part 2: Evolutionists’ Response

In Part 1 of this series we discussed how the relatively recent technological advances in DNA sequencing led to some very unexpected findings. In particular, the discovery of the prolific existence of “orphan genes.” Given the evolutionary assumption of shared genes among all living things with changes occurring incrementally over vast eras of time, these mystery genes are a direct contradiction to any scenario predicted by evolutionary theory on a foundational level. Therefore, such evidence requires a very serious response. As we’ll see, the explanations evolutionists offer have certainly been revelatory, but not from a scientific standpoint. What has been revealed is a highly unscientific, faith-based commitment to the theory of evolution.

Nelson Velasco Debate

In the 2014 design vs evolution debate between Paul Nelson (Discovery Institute) and Joel Velasco (Texas Tech), the subject of orphan genes arose. Velasco’s 5 points are perfectly representative of the initial evolutionist response. Cornelius Hunter, writing for Evolution News, recounts Velasco’s arguments:

  1. “… there isn’t much to be concerned with here because ‘Every other puzzle we’ve ever encountered in the last 150 years has made us even more certain of a fact that we already knew, that we’re all related.’”
  2. …the whole orphan problem is contrived, as it is nothing more than a semantic misunderstanding — a confusion of terms…”
  3. … many of the orphans are so categorized merely because the search for similar sequence is done only in ‘very distantly related’ species.”
  4. …orphans are really nothing more than a gap in our knowledge… the more we know about a species, the more the orphan problem goes away. And which species do we know the most about? Ourselves of course…: ‘…How many orphan genes are in humans?… Zero.’”
  5. …while new orphans are discovered with each new genome that is decoded, the trend is slowing and is suggestive that in the long run relatives for these orphans will be found..”

As you can see, Velasco doesn’t offer a scientific explanation for the existence of orphan genes. Initially, evolutionists were very reluctant to even concede that they legitimately existed in numbers large enough to warrant discussion. Instead, he frames his case around faith that an explanation which fits evolutionary theory will arise. His answer is a catch all attempt to cover all the bases. Hunter sums up the inadequacy of Velasco’s view:

So to summarize Velasco’s position, the orphan problem will be solved so don’t worry about it, but actually orphans are not a problem at all but rather a semantic misunderstanding, but on the other hand the orphan problem is a consequence of incomplete genomic data, but actually on the other hand the problem is a consequence of insufficient knowledge about the species, and in any case even though the number of known orphans keeps on rising, they will eventually go away because the orphans as a percentage of the overall genomic data (which has been exploding exponentially) are going down.”

Velasco’s 4th Point

The one point listed that most resembles an actual argument is Velasco’s 4th. Is it true that the human genome, the one we know most about, doesn’t have any orphan genes?

The short answer is no.

A 2007 study by the Lander group did indeed reject thousands of proposed orphan genes that had been identified within the human genome, but not all. Authors of the study noted that not all proposed orphans were able to be rejected. In fact, this 2015 study “identified 634 human-specific genes” that appear to have arisen de novo in the human genome. Most telling, however, is why the Lander study rejected the majority of the orphans:

If the orphans represent valid human protein-coding genes, we would have to conclude that the vast majority of the orphans were born after the divergence from chimpanzee. Such a model would require a prodigious rate of gene birth in mammalian lineages and a ferocious rate of gene death erasing the huge number of genes born before the divergence from chimpanzee. We reject such a model as wholly implausible. We thus conclude that the vast majority of orphans are simply randomly occurring ORFs that do not represent protein-coding genes…” (emphasis mine)

On what grounds would such a model be considered “wholly implausible”? Apparently, because their existence cannot be plausibly explained within the constraints of evolutionary theory. Hunter notes the following:

This is what philosophers refer to as theory-ladenness…There was no scientific evidence that those human sequences, identified as orphans, were ‘spurious.’ The methods used in the Lander study were full of evolutionary assumptions. The results entirely hinged on evolution. Although the paper did not explicitly state this, without the assumption of evolution no such conclusions could have been made. Although the paper authoritatively concluded that the vast majority of the orphans in the human genome were spurious, this was not an empirical observation or inference…”

On Second Thought…

Over time evolutionists have been forced to accept that orphan genes do in fact exist in numbers great enough to require a revamping of long held beliefs regarding the formation of genes. In other words, the evolutionists’ explanation of the origin of genes had to… evolve.

Since a designed genome is not an option for evolutionists, an alternative explanation for the existence of these orphan genes had to be considered. In late 2014, Tautz D. published the following conclusion in his The discovery of de novo gene evolution:

Genes can evolve via duplication and divergence mechanisms, but also de novo out of non-coding intergenic sequences. This latter mechanism has only recently become fully appreciated, while the former mechanism was an almost exclusive dogma for quite some time. This essay explores the history of this development: why a view developed, with the alternative hardly being explored. Because of the prevailing view, an important aspect of the nature of genes and their evolutionary origin escaped our attention. Evidence is now rapidly accumulating that de novo evolution isa very active mechanism for generating novelty in the genome, and this will require anew look at how genes arise and become functional.” (emphasis mine)

With evolution assumed, Tautz concludes that new genes must be able to arise “from scratch” (“de novo”) from non coding sequences. He also makes three admissions: (1) they have only recently become forced to abandon (due to the discovery of the existence of these orphan genes) the exclusive evolutionary dogma that dominated genetic understanding; (2) this dogma caused a blindness with regard to their understanding of the nature and origin of genes; (3) they will have to figure out how these genes could exist.

As the 20th century evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This is the bias mainstream science operates under. The theory of evolution is never questioned- it is an assumed foundational truth. Since orphan genes are now acknowledged to exist, evolutionists assume that there must be a naturalistic mechanism to explain new genes appearing from scratch in the genome.

What Next?

Evolutionists are left with the task of explaining a naturalistic mechanism by which these “de novo” genes come to exist. In Part 3, we’ll take a look at the plausibility of these proposed mechanisms.