The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record -- often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors. The ongoing research about the Cambrian period is an exciting opportunity to advance our understanding of how evolutionary processes work, and the environmental factors shaping them.

The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record.³ The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms. However, they did include the basic features that define the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong. For example, vertebrates are part of the Chordata group. The chordates are characterized by a nerve cord, gill pouches and a support rod called the notochord. In the Cambrian fauna, we first see fossils of soft-bodied creatures with these characteristics. However, the living groups of vertebrates appeared much later. It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.⁴

Interpretations of the “Cambrian Explosion”

Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.⁵ Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms. ⁶

Most scientists are persuaded that something significant happened at the dawn of the Cambrian era and view the Cambrian Explosion as an area of exciting and productive research. For example, scientists are now gaining a better understanding of what existed before the Cambrian Explosion as a result of new fossil discoveries. Recent discoveries are filling in the fossil record for the Precambrian fauna with soft-bodied organisms like those in the Ediacaran Assemblages found around the world.⁷ Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air.⁸ Further discoveries will no doubt reveal more clearly the relationship of Precambrian organisms with the creatures found in the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang deposits.⁹

Genomic studies provide further insights into the origins of the Cambrian Explosion. Although the genetic divergence of organisms would have preceded the recognition of new body plans in the fossil record, accumulating genomic data is broadly consistent with the fossil record.¹⁰ Both point to the rise of the bilateria (bilaterally symmetric invertebrate animals) in the latest Precambrian Ediacaran, and their ecological explosion in diversity in the Cambrian.

Unanswered Questions

The sudden change of the Cambrian Era was, in relative terms, not too sudden for the process of evolution. The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change. However, for millions of years beforehand, body plans of animals had remained relatively constant. Not until this time period did a significant change occur. The remaining questions are: What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time? Several different theories address the origin of the Cambrian Explosion, proposing that dramatic environmental changes must have opened up new niches for natural selection to operate upon. These proposals include the runaway glaciation theory,¹¹ which proposes that glaciers briefly covered much of the earth, and the resultant loss of habitat created bottlenecks where evolution could act more rapidly. Another theory suggests that a change in atmospheric oxygen led to this sudden burst in evolutionary changes.¹² Yet another proposal is that major changes in the seafloor, from algae mat-covered surfaces in the late Precambrian to soft muddy bottoms later in the Cambrian, had dramatic evolutionary and ecological impacts.¹³

The Cambrian Era Fossils, Providing Answers

While the causes of the Cambrian Explosion remain a topic of open and exciting debate, the continued fossil discoveries from the Cambrian and Precambrian Eras are bringing more clarity to the evolutionary puzzle. These fossils provide valuable insight, particularly for envisioning the common ancestors of diverse groups. For instance, both vertebrates (fish) and echinoderms (sea urchins, starfish) are part of the group called deuterostomes. Without fossil evidence, it is hard to envision what a common ancestor would look like for these very different creatures. The Cambrian fossils are filling in the picture.¹⁴

Behe suggests that the parts of irreducibly complex biological structures would be useless unless they appear all together, and evolution has no mechanism to build complex structures like this. Natural selection, after all, works just one step at a time. Furthermore, natural selection has no foresight. Put simply, if a change is going to be preserved, that change will generally need to confer some extra benefit—no matter how small—to the next generation. Behe has oversimplified things a little. Evolutionary theory predicts that in small populations, neutral changes—and even changes that are slightly deleterious—will survive sometimes. Still, in general, he is correct. So let’s examine what evolutionary biologists believe about how complex structures are built.

A Seemingly “Irreducibly Complex” System

As Scott Gilbert shows in his textbook Developmental Biology, Eighth Edition, the evolution of the interconnecting bones of the middle ear illustrates how supposedly irreducibly complex structures can in fact be generated by the stepwise process of gradual change and natural selection. Fish, for example, have a special system called the lateral line system that extends along the length of their bodies and enables them to detect vibrations in the water. They also have an inner ear, which is useful for balance and supplements the lateral line system in detecting vibrations. With the movement of certain water-dwelling species to land, the lateral line system became obsolete because what was needed was a way of amplifying the vibrations in air, not water. A bone that had previously been used as a support for the skull became the stapes. Along with supporting the skull, the stapes also transmitted sound vibrations—which come in part through the skull and jaw—to the inner ear. How do we know it’s the same bone? By examining its embryological origin in fish and reptiles. In reptiles, there is just one bone that transmits air vibrations to the inner ear: the stapes.

We can also trace the origin of the two other middle ear bones, the incus and malleus, by looking at fossils from the time of the origin of mammals about 230 million years ago. Until that point, two bones—the articular and quadrate bones—served as the hinge of the jaw. Investigators, however, believe they carried out a second function. Because they were located adjacent to the stapes, it is likely they also aided in transmitting sound vibrations to the stapes.

Here is where the story gets especially interesting. Right at the time of the origin of mammals it turns out there were several species—perhaps many, paleontologists are sure they don’t have all of the transitional species preserved in the fossil record—that had a double hinge at the jaw. Not only did the articular/quadrate bones serve as a hinge, but another pair of bones, the dental/squamosal bones, served that purpose as well. So the articular/quadrate bones, which transmitted sound, no longer had to also serve as a jaw-hinge. This second function became redundant because there was another set of bones doing the same thing.

With that redundancy, the articular/quadrate bones of the jaw were free to become the incus/malleus of the middle ear. We have a record of the transition, and we have a record of the building of a so-called irreducibly complex structure. Parts that were initially used for one function became, for a period of time, useful for two functions. Then, one function was refined while the other function became redundant or unnecessary. In other words, parts that were initially used for one purpose become co-opted for another purpose; and looking back through the fossil record, we can see the intermediates.

The Bacterial Flagellum

In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe focuses on three things he considers to be irreducibly complex: the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade and the immune system. The elements of these systems are molecular in nature and therefore the evolutionary intermediates are somewhat harder to document. Interacting molecules are not preserved for historical analysis like fossil bones of the skull and middle ear. In his book, Behe suggests that biochemistry gives no clue as to how complex interacting parts like these might have come about, and he confidently states that investigations have run up against a blank wall.

It has now been 13 years since Darwin’s Black Box was written. The structures and processes Behe chose to focus on have been studied quite extensively. Although it is impossible to go back and analyze step by step what actually did happen, much evidence for straightforward evolutionary explanations has accumulated over the years. The diversity in a given structure that we see when we compare different species tells us a great deal about how that structure might have come about.

Consider the bacterial flagellum, the example most commonly used to illustrate the principle of irreducible complexity. First, it is important to point out that the bacterial flagellum comes in many different varieties, sometimes with profound differences between one species and another. This alone illustrates that the flagellum is probably not irreducibly complex. It can be altered, and when it is altered, it does not necessarily lose its function.

There are many species of bacteria, for example, that use the basal parts of the flagellum to deliver toxins into their host. A different set of bacterial species uses a portion of the flagellar machinery for another purpose. Species of the genus Buchnera live inside the sheltered environment of aphid cells in a symbiotic relationship. These bacteria no longer need flagella. However, each tiny Buchnera cell is studded with hundreds of copies of the flagellar base. As a recent paper in the journal Trends in Microbiology shows, the purpose now is to serve as a passageway for the export of proteins and other material into the surrounding environment—the aphid cell in which the bacterium resides. So while we cannot follow the sequence of events step by step to illustrate how the various types of flagella have arisen, we can see how they have changed and, in some cases, even taken on whole new functions. The term for adapting a structure for a different purpose than that for which it originally arose is “exaptation.” This is one important way in which complexity arises.

That is not the whole story, however, because individual parts have to be added into the structure as it becomes more complex or takes on new function. Where do those parts come from? Recently, investigators have shown that the key protein in the molecular motor that causes the flagellum to rotate has a very similar structure to another protein that is used to transport magnesium into and out of cells. Both protein molecules have sections that fold in almost exactly the same manner, and when we analyze the order of their building blocks (amino acids), we see profound similarities. This illustrates a second principle in building complexity: It is done by co-option. Parts that are used for one purpose are co-opted to take on a second function as well. Sometimes, the instructions to build a part are encoded by identical duplicate genes. When that happens, co-option is especially straightforward. One set of instructions for making the original part is preserved while the duplicate set of instructions can gradually be modified through mutation and natural selection, allowing the part to become better and better at carrying out its new function. This illustrates a third principle of assembling complexity: adaptation through natural selection.

Even more revealingly, the supposedly irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum turns out not to be irreducible after all. For example, there is a protein at the base of the flagellum, an ATPase, that drives the key structural subunit (flagellin) of the long hollow tube through its inner core, causing the flagellum to grow in length. Yet, it has been shown that flagellin can be transported to the end of a flagellum without this ATPase. The protein that was thought to be one of the flagellum’s most important parts can be done away with. This illustrates a fourth principle of building a complex structure: redundancy. Inside of cells, there is often more than one way to accomplish a particular purpose; as evolution “tinkers” with a complex structure, there is likely to be redundancy with certain parts at certain stages. One of these redundant mechanisms may become more specialized, and even perfected, as time goes by.

The Eye

Another system that is often held up as an example of irreducible complexity is the eye. People often ask: What good is a partly assembled eye? Is there any logical series of steps that could result in the creation—through the process of natural selection—of a structure so elegant as the eye of an eagle? What would be the starting point, anyway?

Watch "The Evolution of the Eye" from PBS' Evolution: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

All light-sensing devices in the animal world make use of a single light-sensitive molecule, retinal, which is derived from Vitamin A. Retinal can change its shape when it absorbs a photon of light. This molecule is always complexed with a protein known as an opsin. The two work together to sense light.

By analyzing the arrangement of the building blocks, or amino acids, in opsin, it is possible to show that all opsins are derived from a single ancestral gene. What purpose could the retinal/opsin combination have had in the earliest days of animal history? It likely functioned to detect light in order to set the internal body clock that regulates the 24-hour cycle of biological processes, known as the Circadian rhythm. In recent years, it has become apparent that living processes inside of cells are tuned to function in a manner that is synchronized with the cycle of sunlight.

Circadian rhythms function throughout the living world, including single-cell organisms. It seems likely, then, that the simplest light-detecting device arose through exaptation of a molecular device that was used to detect light—not so that an organism might move toward or away from the light, but so it could reset its molecular clock. Even the origin of opsin illustrates a basic principle of building complexity, co-option. Opsin is one of many G-protein receptors, which have come to take on many different functions through the history of life. When coupled with the light-sensitive molecule retinal, a G-protein receptor allows the cell to be sensitized to the presence and absence of light. Although we have no fossilized transitions that allow us to trace the various eye intermediates that have occurred in animal history, as we do with the middle ear, we do have a myriad of light-sensing devices in the animal kingdom that allow us to piece together how sophisticated eyes could have been created through a gradual process driven by natural selection. (You can read more about the prospective intermediates that exist in the animal world in a wonderful paper by Ryan Gregory.)

If you choose to explore eye development in detail, be watching for examples of exaptation, co-option, step-by-step adaptation and redundancy. For example, you will note that the evolution of the lens illustrates co-option and redundancy. There are two ways to focus the image on the light-receiving cells at the back of an eye. One way is through an independent lens. The other way is through the transparent cornea in front of the lens. The lens is simply transparent crystallized protein molecules that are assembled in such a manner that they bring the image into sharp focus. There are a variety of proteins that can be crystallized to serve as an effective lens. It turns out that, depending on the evolutionary lineage, various proteins—including enzymes such as alcohol dehydrogenase (an enzyme for breaking down ethanol), glutathione S transferase and protein chaperones—are used for this purpose. This is a simple example of co-option and redundancy functioning together as part of the tinkering mechanism used for building a complex structure like the eye.

Two-thirds of animal phyla have some sort of light-sensing device. Although all of these light-sensing devices make use of retinal and opsins, there are differences in structure that we can trace to differences in evolutionary origin. In his 2003 book, Life’s Solution, Simon Conway-Morris documents at least seven independent origins of the eye resulting in very similar outcomes. For example, the eye of a squid and the eye of a mammal work in a remarkably similar manner. However, the ways the two eyes are constructed during development are quite different. Differences in structure are constrained by how particular bodies are constructed as the embryo develops. Eyes also bear telltale signs of the fact that there has been a certain amount of jury-rigging in their construction. They are not perfect. They have blind spots, are subject to retinal detachment, glaucoma and macular degeneration, all of which are a function of the history of how the eye has been assembled through time.

Read how a recent study has shot down the idea that protein transport is irreducibly complex.

Although we don’t have the eye intermediates preserved in stone the way we can see the simpler assembly of the parts of the mammalian middle ear, we do have a vast array of eye structures in the animal kingdom, any one of which might appear to be irreducibly complex but which, in fact, has been put together through a set of processes that has included exaptation, co-option, step-by-step adaptation and some redundancy at various stages along the way. Indeed, these eye structures themselves are likely intermediates. Everything changes as it passes through the eons of time. This is the legacy of creation through the process of natural selection.

It would be difficult to give a short answer to this complex question.  From all we know about the state of the Earth 3 to 4 billion years ago and what we know about the complexity of the building blocks of life — DNA, RNA, amino acids, sugars — no entirely plausible hypothesis for the spontaneous origin of life has been found.  Because the topic does not have as many potentially useful applications as other areas of science, less research has traditionally been performed in this area. However, scientists are currently approaching this challenge from a number of different perspectives.¹ The fact that there is no answer today does not mean there will be no answer tomorrow.  Though an explanation for the origin of life is currently elusive, this does not mean divine intervention is the only possible explanation. There are many unexplained natural phenomena; the origin of life is simply a particularly compelling example of an unsolved mystery we would like to understand.

Clarifications

In discussions about the origin of life, an important first step is clarifying what is meant by life.  The first forms of life on Earth were probably very different from what we would call life today.  It may be tempting to think of life as anything containing the DNA double helix seen in many life forms today.  However, the main property required for early life is self-replication. The earliest self-replicating systems could have been made out of DNA, RNA or some other basic building blocks.  The key feature of such systems would have to be the ability to gather chemicals from the local environment and make copies of themselves.  All life on Earth contains carbon as an essential elemental building block.²  Carbon is the simplest element capable of forming the remarkably complex molecules that are so prevalent in life forms. Therefore, it is likely carbon was involved from the beginning.  Compounds containing carbon are generally categorized as organic; and exploring the natural mechanisms that create complex organic compounds is a main focus in research on the origins of life.

It is also important to keep in mind the age of the Earth. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.  All evidence suggests that the Earth was inhospitable to life for the first 700 million years, largely because it was so hot. However, the Earth gradually cooled, and 4 billion years ago it became more hospitable. Within little more than 100 million years, the first single-cell life forms appeared.³  Where did these organisms come from? And what were their capabilities?  Although we do not know the path that led to these early bacterial forms, it seems likely DNA had emerged as the information molecule by this time.  Microbiologist and physicist Carl R. Woese suggests there was a considerable amount of lateral gene transfer among the first forms of bacteria called archaebacteria.⁴ Lateral gene transfer, which is the movement of genes from one bacterium to another, would have enabled the exchange of genetic material, and it would therefore expedite the process of diversification of biological function acted upon by natural selection.  How these first organisms ever developed in the first place is the topic of the following discussion.

The Miller-Urey Experiment

Charles Darwin is often credited for the original “warm little pond” hypothesis, which proposes life may have formed from a combination of inorganic compounds and energy.⁵ Soviet biochemist Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin revisited this idea and proposed life formed in an environment that lacked oxygen but was energized by sunlight.⁶  These kinds of ideas are the basis of much research of life’s origins, including the famous Miller-Urey experiment.

In 1953 at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tackled the problem of the origin of life by reproducing the conditions they believed to be present on the primitive Earth when life originated.  By zapping a mixture of water and inorganic compounds with electricity, they produced organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of protein.⁷ This result catalyzed further experiments — and at least to some, it appeared that the solution to life’s mystery was about to unfold. 

A subsequent discovery by Joan Oro at the University of Houston, published in 1961, demonstrated that an essential component of DNA — adenine — as well as several amino acids could be formed by heating the inorganic compound hydrogen cyanide in water-ammonia.⁸  Though this work potentially contributed useful pieces to the puzzle,⁹ Miller-Urey type experiments have fallen short of providing a full answer to how life originated.  It’s one thing to have organic compounds present, it’s quite another to have them form a self-replicating system.

Recently, these initial results were revisited with more sensitive methods. Researchers discovered additional amino acids and other building blocks formed during the Miller-Urey experiments that they originally had not realized.¹⁰ Miller continued a variety of experiments to pin down life’s origins and, though the mystery remained unsolved, members of his lab discovered amino acids and other building blocks for life can also form from inorganic compounds in extremely cold environments.¹¹

How Life Came Together

Explanations of how the amino acids, nucleotides and sugars were formed, how they assembled in the form of DNA and RNA, and then how these building blocks of life came to replicate themselves and acquire the enzymes to facilitate this process, are all still speculative.  Many interesting ideas are being researched, however, including the deep sea vent theory,¹² radioactive beach theory¹³ and crystal or clay theory.¹⁴ Another opinion, held by Francis Crick and others, is that the only explanation for life on Earth is that it came from another planet.¹⁵  However, this type of explanation only pushes the question farther back: How did this extraterrestrial life originate? A compelling explanation of the origin of life here on Earth has not yet emerged.

Evolutionary theories of how life originated fall in two main camps: the gene first hypothesis and the metabolism first hypothesis. The gene first hypothesis currently focuses on RNA rather than DNA, as certain RNA molecules have shown the ability to function as enzymes, suggesting RNA could have both carried information and copied itself.  From this point of view, RNA preceded both DNA and protein synthesis.  On the other hand, the metabolism first hypothesis argues the molecules of prebiotic materials formed chemical cycles and networks of chemical reactions that gave rise to primitive metabolic systems.  These metabolic systems existed before RNA and provided the environment for RNA replication to later emerge.  Despite the exploration of numerous avenues of research, both theories currently lack conclusive evidence.  While researchers have recently generated self-replicating RNA from prebiotic molecules in the laboratory,¹⁶ it is difficult to understand how RNA — a notoriously unstable polymer — could have supported self-replicating systems in the hostile chemical and thermal environment of early planet Earth.

Conclusion

The study of life's origins is an exciting area of research.  The jury is still out on how life first emerged. A simple response would be to give a God-of-the-gaps explanation: that some supernatural force, namely God, must have intervened to bring life into being.

See "What is evolution?".




 

But consider the timeline of these scientific quandaries.  Life on this Earth appeared approximately 3.85 billion years ago, yet serious scientific study of its origins began just 60 years ago.  A convincing scientific explanation may still emerge in the next 50 years. Though the origin of life could certainly have resulted from God’s direct intervention, it is dangerously presumptuous to conclude the origin of life is beyond discovery in the scientific realm simply because we do not currently have a convincing scientific explanation. Although the origin of life is certainly a genuine scientific mystery, this is not the place for thoughtful people to wager their faith. All that has happened in the history of life has happened in response to God's creation command (John 1:3).  Furthermore, God is immanent in creation, upholding the natural laws.  Colossians 1:17 tells us, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."  What we do not know at this point is the extent to which God may have intervened supernaturally in the history of life.  Some believe that the creation command was carried out through the natural laws which have been continuously upheld by the ongoing presence of God in creation.  Others believe that since the God of the Bible and the God we experience in our lives intervenes in supernatural ways at times, that this would also likely have been true in the history of life itself.  Neither of these views are inconsistent with scientific findings.  The important thing is that in the BioLogos view, God’s sustaining creative presence undergirds all of life’s history from the beginning to the present.

Finally, as a purely technical matter, the theory of evolution does not propose an explanation to the question of the origin of life at all. The theory of evolution becomes relevant only after life has already begun.