Replies

I’ll be the first to throw slime. The Cambrian explosion happened over a period of 80 million years at a time when conditions on earth were becoming more friendly to multicellular life. The major phyla of animals that “burst” into being did so over 20 million years of that period. The appearance of an explosion was enhanced by an extinction event that preceded it.

The fossil record of that period and slightly before is preserved in shale and rather unique. The preceding period is rather poorly preserved so we’ve only got trace fossils for some of it. The trace fossils suggest multicellular creatures but only preserve their burrows, tracks and feeding sites.

The Cambrian change in environmental conditions was fare more friendly to complex life forms than those before it. As creatures expanded their numbers and plants proliferated, food was given that other life forms exploited and adaptations led to even more and different creatures and plants.

Finally, transitional life forms may only be seen in the rear view mirror. Each was a successful creature in its time. Synapsids were transitional from reptiles to mammals, for instance. The Dino to Bird transition is well documented in the fossil record. There are many other examples.

The technology and study of evolution in still in its infancy. The Cambrian Explosion has only been intensely studied since 1970. Radiometric dating isn’t all that old either. Science is always a work in progress by its nature while creationism has its limiting factor in religious books. It can only be validated by disproving science, often through ridicule.

The Cambrian explosion happened over a period of 80 million years at a time when conditions on earth were becoming more friendly to multicellular life. The major phyla of animals that “burst” into being did so over 20 million years of that period. The appearance of an explosion was enhanced by an extinction event that preceded it.

I read one commentary that part of the reason for the "explosion" was that it was the period when hard skeletons became common, and thus were preserved much more widely. So many people seem to avoid the point that preservation of fossils is not a purely random event.

Ouch! You were doing such a superlative job explaining the factual vagaries of the evolution side of the argument, but then you added the following, as if in possession of knowledge you do not have:

"... creationism has its limiting factor in religious books. It can only be validated by disproving science, often through ridicule."

Perhaps you would like to change that assertion, so that you aren't inadvertently maligning the falsing power of Science by mixing it with the conceptualization of faith in action that is hallmark to creationism assertions?