Vertebrates are chordates, but chordates are not vertebrates
No kidding, bunky, which is why I had to correct you on that point.
and both phylum have now been found to have arisen during the Cambrian explosion
"Both phylum"? First, "phylum" is singular -- surely you mean "both phyla". Second, precisely *because* "Vertebrates are chordates, but chordates are not vertebrates", they can't *BOTH* be "phyla". Vertebrates are a *subgroup* of the phyla Chordata. There is no such thing as the "vertebrate phylum", as you incorrectly stated in a prior post, which is why I *already corrected you* on the matter. Try to keep up, eh?
Now when one considers that it took more than 200 million years for the (supposed) evolution from amhibians to reptiles to mammals
Actually, no more than 100-150 million.
- a far smaller change than that required from any of the prior existing phyla to the ones found in the Cambrian (or even to the changes required for one of the Cambrian species to arise from another),
I'm sorry, you forgot to document your assertion that the amphibian to mammal evolution is somehow "a far smaller change" than any change during the Cambrian. Feel free to present your original research papers on that subject. We'll wait.
If we're just going on personal estimates (and clearly, *you* are), it seems to me that the amphibian to mammal transition is a far greater leap (including as it does egg-laying to live birth, cold-blooded to warm-blooded, abandonment of eggs to raising and feeding of offspring, living significant time in water versus entirely land-based living, dramatically increased brain size, improved immune system, four-chamber heart, etc. etc.) than the less drastic Cambrian changes of simply one shape of underwater life to another.
But hey, you keep imagining anything you want. Just don't mistake it for facts.
the evidence shows clearly the impossibility of evolution. The time involved for the numerous and dramatic changes required for all those changes is simply not enough for them to have occurred according to gradualistic Darwinian evolution.
...because...? Again, you are invited to present your research papers on this topic. In the meantime, I think I'll go with the conclusions of the folks who *have* studied this issue in far more depth than a guy who wasn't even aware that plants had phyla..
Furthermore, you have *again* totally failed to deal with the scenario I spelled out a while back in words small enough even for you, involving an isolated basin of evolution during the pre-Cambrian during which evolution took place at a leisurely pace, then (due to the continental breakup at the time) spilled its results out into the rest of the oceans, making for only an apparent "explosion" in the fossil record elsewhere. Biologists don't overlook this possible scenario -- why do you? Oh, right, because you have no good rebuttal for it.
This is especially so since many of the phyla we are speaking of were sexual creatures
Okay, I'll bite -- exactly how can you claim to know that "many of" the Cambrian-era organisms reproduced sexually?
and the problems created by sexual reproduction for evolution are quite dramatic. It requires that not one, but at least two organisms of the transforming species continually have sufficiently close mutations to allow them to continue reproducing.
Oh, for pete's sake. The mechanism of the evolution of sexual dimophism has been explained to you over and over again. How many more times are you going to pretend not to have learned anything about it? Hint to jog your failing memory: Sexual dimorphism does *not* need to develop as in your ludicrous scenario above. There are many more "easy" routes for evolution to take.
It such dramatic changes could occur in several organisms at the same time to allow them to maintain reproductive viability is totally ludicrous
...only in your straw man version of it. The *actual* pathways, as we've explained to you multiple times, Mr. Troll, are far less "ludicrous".
and shows Darwinian evolution to be what it always was - charlatanism, not science.
Only in your own fevered imagination.
No kidding, bunky, which is why I had to correct you on that point.
Lying as always. I said that Vertebrates is a phyla, not that they are not chordates. Chordates is a more general term than vertebrates, it is not the name of a phylum. So your statement above is another one of your usual lies by misquotation and misreference. Your total dishonesty continues to show through.