It has a "just so" type explanation, but not a good one. It has no explanation for the Cambrian explosion; it has no observed mechanism to cause transition; it has no record of inchoradtes w/ exoskeletons transitioning into endoskeleton forms (in fact, has few if any forms it can point to that can be called clearly transitional between any species, and logically there should be countless examples); it has no example anywhere in the world of the professed order of a chronological column (and in fact, it's exactly opposite in may places)-- just to name a few assumptions that must be made.
And on top of all that, it has yet to explain, how complex organic compounds (a) existed or (b) were assembled by chance less mathematically probable than throwing a box full of letters into the air to create code more complex than a Shakespearan sonnet-- Millions of times over and independently.
Again, I just can't swallow the magnitude of "coincidences" that Neodarwnism requires. But to each their own.
It isn't a "just so" explaination. It is a specific explaination that the origin of mammals occured in the early Triassic (where early mammals are reptile-like - yet another "coincidence" that supports evolution). The cambrian being long before this point must therefore contain no mammals.
If you were really confident that the theory of evolution was flawed you could go grab a spade, take yourself down to the grand canyon and route around in cambrian layers for mammal fossils. See the theory is testable. So what are you waiting for?
And on top of all that, it has yet to explain, how complex organic compounds (a) existed or (b) were assembled by chance less mathematically probable than throwing a box full of letters into the air to create code more complex than a Shakespearan sonnet-- Millions of times over and independently.
Irrelevant. The fact of evolution is that evolution on earth has occured in history beyond doubt. How it happened is the theoretical part, and a seperate question.