Indeed it does not, and one has to wonder why creationists don't wonder why not?
Supposedly, the Cambrian is a problem for evolution, even as we find deep roots and tiny prototypes for the Cambrian fauna, and multiple lines of evidence that some "independent" phyla evolved from some others. But what about how the Cambrian fits into creationism?
Yes, where are those mammals? Where are Adam and Eve?
Where are the land animals of any sort whatever? Amphibians seem to have crawled out in the Devonian, which is later. Where are the very earliest insects? Again, in the Devonian. Later. None in the Cambrian. Reptiles? After the amphibians, rather as evolution would suggest. (We think the reptiles EVOLVED FROM the amphibians, so naturally the amphibians should be first.) Birds? Later. After the reptiles. How about that? Anyway, none in the Cambrian.
Flowering plants? Much later. None in the Cambrian. All the insect types that need flowering plants? You guessed it. Later yet.
To be fair, fish of a sort have been found in the Cambrian, but what a sort! Looks like an Amphioxus just starting to grow a head, or one of those hatchling lampreys that looks like an amphioxus. IOW, very primitive and barely has the features that allow it to be classified as it is. One might almost say it looks like evidence that things are evolving.
We have a lot of new phyla (body plans) in the Cambrian, yes, but these forms are remarkably similar in size scale. They're simple and generalized relative to later forms. In evolutionary terms, they're not very diverged from each other yet.
Funny, that. When creationists mention the Cambrian, they don't talk about this stuff. You'd think enquiring minds would want answers. (Oh, wait!)
Yes I guess you could say that if the cambrian represents a problem for evolution, then the cambrian completely obliterates creationism.
"Wells isn't the first to recognize that the Cambrian explosion counts as evidence against evolution. Even Richard Dawkins admits, "It is as though they [Cambrian explosion fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). These sorts of evidences do indeed pose a major challenge to Darwinian evolution, as the origin of these most recognizable body plans and body parts must take place in just a few million years, and there are no fossils documenting these transitions. This compresses the origin of a very large portion of the genetic diversity ever to have existed on earth into an evolutionary instant, and the lack of transitional forms begs the question if common descent through natural selection had anything to do with this at all. Valentine and Erwin (referenced above) see typical microevolutionary processes as "implausible" to explain all of this. If this doesn't fly in the face of evolutionary predictions, what does? Regardless of what appears later in the fossil record, the bottom line is that almost all phyla appear in the Cambrian without any previous animal fossils to account for their supposed evolutionary origin. There may be no "lions, tigers, or bears" in the Cambrian (oh my?), but the fact is that when other groups appear in the fossil record, again we often see an "explosion". Paleontologists have called the origin of mammals (with few plausible intermediate fossils) an explosion, for birds there's a bird explosion, and there's even a plant explosion."