[gore3000]

Of course other posters attribute this to "environmental niches" with the environment directing the process. I'm still having a problem with that one because it seems to me that the environment itself would be fluid, i.e. subject to whatever else was going on at the time. Or to put it another way, an environment might arise or fall away from the emergence of a new phylum, e.g. a food source.

It also seems to me that if evolution is powered by natural selection and the struggle for life and survival of the fittest, that the more species and the more organisms around the struggle would be keener. Therefore, there should be more evolution as the number of species and organisms increase rather than less. Seems that the evolutionists in order to discredit the miracle of the Cambrian are contradicting the basis of their own theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

It also seems to me that if evolution is powered by natural selection and the struggle for life and survival of the fittest, that the more species and the more organisms around the struggle would be keener. Therefore, there should be more evolution as the number of species and organisms increase rather than less.

I would expect to see more rather than less also. If the "environmental niches" were rigid and standard worldwide, then the explanation would sit better with me.

As it is, I cannot help but imagine emerging life having a significant effect on the environment and other emerging life. I would also expect to see the emergence highly localized and spreading gradually around the world, rather than exploding relatively all at the same time all around the world.

In order for that to make sense to me, the “environmental niches” would have to be quite rigid, uniform around the world, and the phenomenon that gives rise to a phyla the same everywhere at roughly the same time in the Cambrian period, which represents only about 1/100^th of the total attributed elapsed time (as I understand it.)

Just my two cents…